TRUFAX: You can raise a baby on $70 a month!

[Burris]

The comments on the blog post are really distressing. One person even said Suze couldn't know what she was talking about because Suze's preferences made her an "abomination."

LOL. No, seriously: LOL. Orman could be a tentacle monster from outer-space, but that would have no bearing on whether or not her financial advice is sound.

Taryn December 6, 2011 at 2:30 pm

Psalm 1:1 KJ-â€Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly…â€

Then turn the channel.

Rebecca L. December 6, 2011 at 3:58 pm

Exactly! I was going to post this and some similar comments. No Christian should be taking advice from this woman. She is ultra liberal, massively against men, a feminist to the point of being a religion. She is not a mother, not married and last I heard, living with her girlfriend. Light and darkness cannot be walking here in harmony, unequally yoked. I understand the frustration of her comment though, as targeting the cost of a new baby at $700 or more per month. My teenage children don’t cost an extra $700 a month and in my opinion, they are about the most expensive age bracket. I never watch Orman, I flip it or turn it off. I’d rather watch grass grow. I do like Dave Ramsey and believe his advice is closer to what the Bible says, although I still don’t know if he would advocate having large families, I’ve never heard anything one way or the other about his stand there.

Well, Rebecca is entitled to her bigoted, useless, barely coherent opinion. That's what makes freedom great.

Unless Orman were in debt herself, however, there's nothing hypocritical or unseemly about her offering financial advice to others.

The Jeubs and McMama, on the other hand...

Lisa December 7, 2011 at 4:33 pm

What hateful and un-Christian things to say.

Quite right - but Lisa is about to fight a losing battle with this gaggle of idiots. They're so fixated on Orman's sexuality that most of them can't be bothered to refute her points - and the ones that do, using scary personal anecdotes, are hardly paragons of virtuous living themselves.

Rebecca L. December 7, 2011 at 4:59 pm

I have no idea what you mean by that……everything is true. Christians shouldn’t be taking advice from someone who is not a Christian. Sorry if my plain spokedness offended you. Not intended but I just speak plainly.

TRANSLATION: "I know exactly what you mean by that, but I'm going to play at being even dumber than I am. If I were even a whit smarter, however, then I'd realize there's a difference between plain speech and cruel speech."

A plain-spoken person of this sort might say, "I would take Suze Orman's advice with a grain of salt in part because she doesn't have personal experience in budgeting for children and in part because her beliefs aren't grounded in Biblical principles."

A cruel person might say, "Suze Orman is an evil, man-hating lesbian and she doesn't have any kids because she secretly hates teh baybeez, so all her advice is wrong and tainted by the evil in her heart."

See the difference, Rebecca? Pfft. I thought not.

Paul French December 6, 2011 at 4:53 pm

I give my wife $60 per week. That’s all I can afford to give her. With it, she buys all the necessary non-food items. We have 5 kids, aged 2 – 11. Susie is a typical liberal lesbian hack making money off of people’s ignorance. My background is insurance, and most of everything she advises on insurance is wrong, but it sounds good to people and she like all the other so called financial gurus use insurance companies the way Hitler used the Jews to rally everyone behind her. Without insurance, no bank would loan you money for a car or a home. Can you afford to pay cash for these things? The problem with insurance is you cannot eat it, wear it, drive it, watch it, or play with it, so people resent paying money to provide for themselves, their children or their future when the typical liberal attitude today is that someone else should provide for me at no expense to myself.

Wow, but this is nuclear-level stupidity. I feel like I should be wearing protective gear whenever I read anything this dumb.

Orman 'fools' people into taking financial responsibility, and so obviously that's exactly equivalent to Hitler's convincing people to murder the Jews.

How crap, that's stupid!

As for the rest of his post, I can't even really follow it, it's so disjointed.

And if this guy can only afford $240 a month in child-related expenses to be stretched across five kids, then he shouldn't have that many. How's that for "plain speech"?

L. A. Stanley December 9, 2011 at 11:08 pm

I do not know who “Suze Orman†is, where she comes from, how she became a topic of discussion, or why she is occupying anyone’s time, but the stated fact that she is up-front “a lesbianâ€, and somehow in a position to dispense advice to people too un-informed and/or too illiterate to know better than to solicit her “adviceâ€, tells it all to begin with. A product of the “entertainment industry†(anyone who considers this entertainment is an idiot) that will promote anything and anyone, no matter how idiotic, that will produce revenue, and take from the poor to give to the rich, is the obvious answer. How can anyone with an I.Q. above 50 ask for advice from someone with an obvious I.Q. BELOW 50? Caveat Emptor.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, LA Stanley - because, quite frankly, you don't sound very bright yourself.

MarkyMark December 11, 2011 at 4:47 pm

Perhaps the fact that Suze Orman’s a LESBIAN might have colored her perspective in some way?

Aaaaand like a bad penny, MarkyMark always turns up to demonstrate why he's likely a dateless basement-dweller. If any of you don't know who MarkyMark is, just be grateful. Even casual acquaintance with his work could burn out your retinas if you're not careful.

Lisa December 12, 2011 at 10:25 am

Connie, do you moderate comments? Because maybe you should. There are some really hateful homophobic things here, not the sort of thing I would want my children exposed to. Thanks.

Oh Lisa, honey, light should have no fellowship with darkness, so I would suggest you get the hell off Connie's blog and start hanging around people who aren't moronic homo-bigots.

Smockity Frocks December 12, 2011 at 10:46 am

Lisa, Suze Orman is an admitted lesbian in a “marriage†with another woman. I’m not sure how it’s homophobic to state that.

It is homophobic - or, more accurately, homo-bigoted - to treat sexual orientation as a legitimate reason to ignore completely unrelated financial advice from someone.

I try to keep this site family friendly, but there may occasionally be content that is not suitable for children. Use your own judgement as to what you want your children reading.

I'm darkly amused by the undertone of contempt Connie shows for Lisa here, as if somehow Lisa is a bad parent because she wants that Connie, who probably turns over "provocative" magazines in local supermarkets and definitely writes "open letters" related to 'offensive' television content, should tone down the amount of homo-bigotry she allows on her allegedly family-friendly blog.

Clearly Connie doesn't mind her own kids reading hateful bilge, and perhaps she even encourages it.

I would suggest Lisa find a new circle of friends.

[Peas n carrots]

MarkyMark December 11, 2011 at 4:47 pm

Perhaps the fact that Suze Orman’s a LESBIAN might have colored her perspective in some way?

MarkyMark, is that you? The same guy from the Lincoln Journal Star discussion board...because you sure sound like him! He's famous on that board for such gems as:

3 Letter, 6/5: Pro-life man; 93 comments.

Lincoln Right to Life's Matt Tapling told of what it means to him to be pro-life and pro-woman.

But MarkyMark wrote: "Thanks, Matt. It is truly heartwarming knowing there are still men of integrity, faith and spirituality in this nation willing to stand for what is right."

5 Letter, 12/23: Christmas wish; 48 comments.

Leota Hall wished for people to use the term "Christmas" vs. "holiday" or "winter," etc., to celebrate Jesus' birth. She was roundly criticized.

MarkyMark said: "Every day is Christmas with the Lord our God through Jesus Christ our Savior. May God bless you all!"

4) Editorial, 8/18: Evidence mounts on global warming; 101 comments.

The editorial prompted a vigorous discussion on how valid the global warming evidence is.

“Let me guess, scientists agree through e-mails they don’t want made public that if only the federal government would implement more taxes upon its citizens by passing cap and tax, they would be able to control the weather,†MarkyMark said.

2) ‘Tea party’ confusion;

Commenters argued about what the tea party means as a force in American politics.

MarkyMark wrote: “The grass-roots tea party movement has stunned the liberals with the reality of just how quickly American citizens have rejected the left.â€

5. Democrats muscle huge stimulus through Congress; 68 comments.

Commenters were largely critical of the stimulus bill. It’s a phenomenon that liberal commenters were more prevalent before the election, and now fiscal conservatives seem to be in good supply.

MarkyMark said: “The Republicans are going to help us all, by making sure they don’t waste money in Washington. It’s obvious now that we do have change.â€

These are the coherent ones. This guy is a top twat, and if that is indeed him on Connie's blog I wouldn't be one iota surprised.

http://journalstar.com/search/?l=50&sd=desc&s=start_time&f=html&q=markymark

[liltwinstar]

I'm guessing they might have had student loans, too, which probably contributes to their monthly defecit.

Anyway, I sort of get that there's no perfect time to have a kid, but if you can't afford to feed the kid, that's a problem. And (being the goodwill shopper that I am), I have no problem with "frugality" - using the library, second-hand clothes (sometimes, not all the time), budgeting/saving up for "wants" rather than putting them on credit cards, limiting the "latte factor" - all that kind of stuff. But when you can't afford to add your child to your insurance or to feed or diaper your kid??? That should be a red flag.

ETA: Suze Orman is a *financial* advisor. Not a family therapist, or a preacher, or anything. Her "agenda" is getting people on a better financial foot - so yes, advice from her will be colored by the fact that she's looking at their FINANCES, not the Bible or whatever.

[Aurora]

*sigh* I hate LAF so much.

I have a couple of Suze Orman's books. I had no idea she was gay until reading this thread. It is a non-issue. She is a financial advisor and writer.

I'm not sure about the exact details of the budget, but I think in general she is right. It sounds like the couple was already in debt, and losing one salary plus the insurance, plus taking on the costs of another child might be a really bad financial decision.

[jenny_islander]

It sounds as though the couple is caught in the American middle-class noose: not enough income to ever do more than tread water, one disaster away* from bankruptcy and the inexorable slide into poverty--but too much income to qualify for aid.

*We recently had to medevac our child at a cost of almost twice our net annual household income. Our insurance company agreed to pay for most of it and for most of the associated hospital, etc., costs, leaving us with "only" a quarter of our net annual household income to pay. Luckily this was our first disaster in a very long time, so we had been able to put away enough money to pay "our" portion of all these bills and still cover mortgage, groceries, electricity, checkups,** etc. And if our insurance company had refused to pay? Or we had already had to drain the rainy-day account due to some other catastrophe? What would happen to our children's home then?****

**Thus preventing a potential future medical disaster. We are very lucky to be able to do this.***

***If fundamentalists really want people to have large families, they should be lobbying for socialized medicine. The most common cause of financial ruin for American households is medical bills.

****Basically, what Suze Orman said.

[ilovetchotchkes]

They can STFU, Suze Orman is one of the reasons why I'm able to be a SAHM as opposed to slaving away at a job I hate because I'd NEED the $200 above what daycare would cost me. Her prudent advice helped me pay off debt to the point where I could afford children, ANY children stay at home mom or working. Because if I didn't' have the debt paid off that I did, I wouldn't be able to afford a freaking hamster cage let alone a kid.

Her advice on how to "snowball" credit card/debt with interest? In the last 5 years I've paid off over $10,000 in debt using her methods. We waited to have a kid until we had a good chunk of debt paid off and I CAN STAY HOME NOW. If we hadn't waited and "let G-d decide?" I'd probably have 4 kids now, in dire straits and quintuple the debt.

[lilwriter85]

fundy kids get cheaper. you feed them worse foods you don't send them to school you give them crappy used clothes you buy them flipflops give them closets or shelves to sleep in or on and they don't have hobbies. plus they are built-in daycare. one room per sex so you don't need a large house.

A lot of fundie families are pretty cheap. I have noticed with some fundie families, in addition to bad food, flip-flops and bad clothing, the kids likely don't have electronic items like mp3 players, video game consoles, e-readers etc.

Some fundie families don't have their kids in league sports, hobbies or similar activities.

[ilovetchotchkes]

A lot of fundie families are pretty cheap. I have noticed with some fundie families, in addition to bad food, flip-flops and bad clothing, the kids likely don't have electronic items like mp3 players, video game consoles, e-readers etc.

Some fundie families don't have their kids in league sports, hobbies or similar activities.

That's why my husband and I decided on 2-3 kids max. We want to be able to give them sturdy toys that won't break if you look at them cross eyed. And to be to afford music lessons and should they choose to, sports. (If they do, i'm praying they pick hockey over soccer, hockey is like, the only sport I can watch without wanting to hang myself out of sheer boredom). And heaven forfend! vacations ! Eating out once in a while! I used to know a fundie family that had too many kids for their budget (Dad and mom were both unemployed and refused to get jobs and they'd get take out when the kids were in school and they kids would find the leftovers and freak the hell out and fight over like 2 french fries. It was REALLY sad)

[lilwriter85]

That's why my husband and I decided on 2-3 kids max. We want to be able to give them sturdy toys that won't break if you look at them cross eyed. And to be to afford music lessons and should they choose to, sports. (If they do, i'm praying they pick hockey over soccer, hockey is like, the only sport I can watch without wanting to hang myself out of sheer boredom). And heaven forfend! vacations ! Eating out once in a while! I used to know a fundie family that had too many kids for their budget (Dad and mom were both unemployed and refused to get jobs and they'd get take out when the kids were in school and they kids would find the leftovers and freak the hell out and fight over like 2 french fries. It was REALLY sad)

If I ever have kids, I will have 2-4 kids. Like you, I would also want them to be in activities, sports or any other hobbies if they choose to. I would also want my kids to have decent clothing shoes, occasional vacations, and a few nice electronic items.

[celestial]

Here's another thread on this blog post in case you want to read some more interesting comments on this issue:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5570

[dairyfreelife]

Is MarkyMark the guy with the blog on his thoughts on various issues? If so, he's a hateful, embittered misogynist so be glad if you haven't come across him.

[Feberin]

I think $700 is too high but $70 too low. We're expecting our second and if it's another boy there will be very few expenses since we have a (not expired) car seat, high chair, crib, cloth diapers and clothes. If it's a girl then we'll probably spend a small amount on clothes but we buy used and frequently discounted used. I figure I could get clothes for the first year for under $100 especially reusing some things from my son. We will be putting $100 a month (I know it's nowhere enough but it's what we can afford) away for college. But for a newborn there will be few expenses since we have the diapers and I plan on breastfeeding. With our son the only real luxury is we buy stride rite shoes, which he promptly outgrows in a couple months but it's important for me that he has NEW and good shoes on his feet. But we don't do shoes until they are walking. Well baby visits are covered 100% under our insurance. I'm at home so the second won't need daycare. HOWEVER we waited until we were in a financial position that I could stay home for me to stop working and start trying for baby #2. My husband spoke to his HR before I quit to get a quote of how much insurance would cost for a family plan. We included saving money into our budget because it's important to us that we keep saving money and not live paycheck to paycheck. I haven't seen the couple in question's financial information but I think if a financial planner says you can't afford something they're correct. Even if the baby did only cost $70 a month they aren't currently making ends meet. I suppose if they BOTH really wanted her at home they could look into moving to a cheaper area or the husband could start looking for another job. But I don't think eating out less or other luxuries are going to save them the $2,000 or whatever they need less a month. I kind of wonder if they should have waited longer for the first kid.

[Wolfie]

the kids likely don't have electronic items like mp3 players, video game consoles, e-readers etc.

I didn't grow up in a fundie family, but a slightly hippie family, and while our friends and neighbors often had video game consoles, we didn't. You don't need an e-reader either- there are books and libraries. MP3 players- nice to have and I don't think it's a big deal except that I hear kids killing their hearing with them all the time. (we did get tape players and then CD players as we were old enough to handle them. None of these things are neccesities. Nice, but not essential.

Now other activities and stuff is something that I think is needed. I adored piano lessons, band, golf league, ect... My siblings had their activites too.

[celestial]

I didn't grow up in a fundie family, but a slightly hippie family, and while our friends and neighbors often had video game consoles, we didn't. You don't need an e-reader either- there are books and libraries. MP3 players- nice to have and I don't think it's a big deal except that I hear kids killing their hearing with them all the time. (we did get tape players and then CD players as we were old enough to handle them. None of these things are neccesities. Nice, but not essential.

Now other activities and stuff is something that I think is needed. I adored piano lessons, band, golf league, ect... My siblings had their activites too.

I grew up in a slightly hippie family too. We didn't have lots of possessions, either. We weren't exactly forbidden from things like video games and walkmans, but we had to use our own money to buy them. I earned money by babysitting and my brother mowed neighbors' lawns and such. I never felt deprived. We could participate in whatever extracurriculars we wanted, but if the costs got outrageous we were expected to contribute to that, too. My mom did daycare and my dad was in college and then grad school, and I know my family was considered "low-income" by the state and we got free school lunches and stuff, but I never minded not being rich. We were a fun, functional family and I'm actually glad I grew up with a "simpler" lifestyle in comparison with other kids because it gave me a more relaxed outlook on life, knowing that having a lot of extra "stuff" wasn't necessary. I think my parents did a very good job of sheltering us from the day to day realities of money-related stress, though. I'm sure there were times they worried, but they never shared that with us and always made paying for our needs (and some wants) the top priority.

[snarkbillie]

I didn't grow up in a fundie family, but a slightly hippie family, and while our friends and neighbors often had video game consoles, we didn't. You don't need an e-reader either- there are books and libraries. MP3 players- nice to have and I don't think it's a big deal except that I hear kids killing their hearing with them all the time. (we did get tape players and then CD players as we were old enough to handle them. None of these things are neccesities. Nice, but not essential.

Now other activities and stuff is something that I think is needed. I adored piano lessons, band, golf league, ect... My siblings had their activites too.

I'm moderately crunchy so my kids don't have those things either, but they DO have expenses outside of food, clothes, shelter and well visits to the doctor. They need glasses for example. My insurance pays for frames every 2 years which is fine for an adult, but my kid needs them more often than that. $300 out the window.

[Wolfie]

I'm moderately crunchy so my kids don't have those things either, but they DO have expenses outside of food, clothes, shelter and well visits to the doctor. They need glasses for example. My insurance pays for frames every 2 years which is fine for an adult, but my kid needs them more often than that. $300 out the window.

I totally agree that $70 is unreasonably low. But I was just point out that all kinds of fancy electronics aren't needed. There are many other expenses out there that are needed.

[celestial]

I totally agree that $70 is unreasonably low. But I was just point out that all kinds of fancy electronics aren't needed. There are many other expenses out there that are needed.

Oh yes, me too, just to be clear.

[emmyfair]

$70 is insane. And for the record, my third child was quite expensive - a lot of the things we'd bought had been plain worn out by the first and second kids, and needed to be replaced.

[emmiedahl]

I don't think my baby costs $70 a month most months. But we are only part time users of disposable diapers, and we get the evil government insurance for children (which I guess means that he costs way more than $70 a month but we don't personally write the check. And, oh yeah, WIC).

I am pretty crunchy and I was raised by hippies so I am good at this stuff, better than the average American certainly. Also, we were in a better financial place when we had the older kids, so we have cute, high quality gear already. If we had gone cheap with the older kids, the clothing and gear would not have lasted as long. But then we get to the older kids and they certainly are more expensive. There are things that we do without that I would personally rather have, so I would not consider the cheap parenting plan an ideal one.

In addition, one should probably consider the input of your "village" in the cost of your children. I have had people give me really nice hand-me-downs out of sheer kindness, and that means I don't have to buy as many clothes for the older kids. I have a teenaged sister who will sometimes stay at my house for a day or so which allows me to study and work without paying for childcare. My mother and sisters love to buy my kids cute accessories and expensive toys. So we get a much nicer existence than we can actually afford just because we have this awesome village and a significant amount of government assistance. Yet this type of communal spirit is somewhat against the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, and it certainly would not work if everyone is stretching themselves to the limit and has nothing to give.

[valsa]

I love Suze Orman. She's very good at conveying the basic financial common sense a lot of people are lacking nowadays. And while she does tend to be conservative (the $700 figure and she's very much into people having good insurance for everything (life, disability, etc)), I think that's a good thing. Too many people skate by on a perfect-life budget, only to get sucked into a quicksand pit of debt the first time real life rears its ugly head.

Plus she got my family $200 a few years ago and I'm always gonna like people who get me free money (as a promotion for her new book, she arraigned a deal with a money mutual account provider that if people who had a special code from her book (got mine from the library too) opened an account and saved $50/month for a year, they'd get a $100 bonus. Signed me and my mother up for that sweet deal)

She's also never been overt in the fact she was a lesbian. I had a feeling she was gay when I first started reading her book- years ago- but it wasn't until she won some financial advisor award and mentioned her partner in the speech (by her initials, probably to avoid giving away the gender) that it was evident she was a lesbian. Maybe she's changed in the past few years and is far more open now, but I still don't see how that disqualifies her from giving financial advice.

[hapamama]

$70/month... what?

Diapers alone eat up about 1/3 of that budget a month. What about insurance/copays? What about food (be it formula or additional food for Mom if she's nursing)? What about clothing? Costs of necessary equipment (car seat, crib, etc)? Heaven forbid should you need to get a larger home or car to accommodate the new baby.

Older kids are even more expensive. Teen/tween boys eat A LOT. Preschool-grade school aged kids can be hard on their clothes and shoes. Trips to the dentist are crazy expensive even if you're lucky to have dental insurance. School costs money too, even if you're homeschooling.

[Alecto]

Maybe she's changed in the past few years and is far more open now, but I still don't see how that disqualifies her from giving financial advice.

She is more open now. In fact, she came out in 2007 and has been with her partner for 11 years.

[donks]

Hell, it costs more than $70 a month for me to care for 1 of my medium-sized dogs!

[emmiedahl]

The other expense of a baby (one that fundies seem to ignore) is time and energy. Children need so much care, and I think it is really shitty and selfish to have more children than the parents can personally care for. The family in the video sounds really stressed and overworked, a baby could push that past the tipping point even if they scraped up some extra income.

[Burris]

$70 is insane. And for the record, my third child was quite expensive - a lot of the things we'd bought had been plain worn out by the first and second kids, and needed to be replaced.

There's also the matter of disability, which can happen to anybody. If her family ended up with a child who has my husband's condition, for example, they would be lucky to keep costs down to $70 a day, let alone per month - and we live in a country with socialized medicine and help with equipment purchases.

As a kid he broke several bones a week, required an ongoing rotation of surgeries, and spent a lot of time in hospital.

My own parents, whose idea of parenting was to leave PB and hamburger out for us to cook and thought milk was an oversold luxury, still had to spend money on my eyeglasses, some parts of my eye doctor visits, canes, magnifying glasses, a monocular, large-print books, and so on.

Even as adults, we both have costs - my husband more so: Wheelchair batteries, new tires, poles and other equipment that wears out, a CPAP machine, medication, bath chair, walker, canes, hearing aids, maintenance on our 20-year-old cargo van and its wheelchair lift...

Some of this isn't covered by either universal healthcare or private insurance. For example, hearing aids usually run $1000 a pair on the low end and his insurance co-pay is a mere $250. Our income is too high to qualify for free equipment, so we have a 25% co-pay with the provincial government for things such as canes and the bath-lift. The van is, of course, entirely our own responsibility.

I'm not complaining. It's perfectly good. There are a lot of resources at our disposal, we're both educated and capable of working, and our yearly tax refund defrays some of the ongoing costs and allows us to make major upgrades once a year.

But disability is expensive – fucking expensive. And it's even more expensive in a child.