So, I've been thinking...
#31
(10-19-2012, 02:28 PM)Guardian Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 04:13 PM)James02 Wrote: Here's my advise to men starting out.  FORGET WOMEN for a few years and get established.  Have a goal to save $20,000 in 2 years.  This will change you and the women will notice.  You will project responsibility. 

Why oh why oh why don't more people think like this! What ever happened to being practical and responsible??

I know one young Trad family who married with massive student loans.  Now they have children and are still hopelessly up to their eyeballs in debt and struggling to make ends meet.  Please pray for them. 

My wife's sister is dating Mr. Perfect and they are pushing to get married within the year.  The problem is he didn't until very recently (think the last 3 months) have a car, a cell phone, or a job, he lived at home and was in debt.  He could be out of debt by now, but suffice to say he has little to no savings and she has practically nothing to her name.  Yes he's on the right path, but they still want to get married within a year and to my wife and I's frustration her parents are encouraging it. 

WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE??

Why can't people think practically.  If you're a Trad you're going to have a large family.  A family costs money.  Living costs money. What happened to establishing yourself before rushing off to get married? Oh, I forgot.  "We're in love and can't wait any longer." Garbage.  If you're meant to be than you can wait until you're responsible enough to get married. 

I graduated from a military academy with no debt.  While we were dating my wife (who also worked at the time) and I agreed that we would not get married until we had set aside (x) amount of money as an emergency fund.  Thankfully we did and that I have a secure job that pays well because we got pregnant right away.  My wife stopped working, gave birth to our first, and almost immediately got pregnant with number 2.  We've been married almost 3 years and have been blessed with 2 little girls so far. 

I thank God for my blessings every day.  I know I'm more fortunate than many others, but at the same time I can't help but wonder what would happen if people were more practical and thought things through. 

I also know its not specifically a Trad thing, but society at large.  Debt is encouraged.  Taking out massive loans is par for the course.  Having 5 different credit cards is the norm.  Hell, using those credit cards to pay off other credit cards is even ok.  People are committing financial suicide and don't even realize it.   

What's my point after this rant? Parents please lead by example and teach your kids and their future spouses to be responsible!

How do you solve for x?
Reply
#32
Its elementary my good Watson.
Reply
#33
Absolutely agree about setting a foundation for one's self and being responsible.  And debt is bad.  That being said, there's an extreme for getting one's affairs in orders that should be avoided as well.  In theory, Guardian, what you advise is what most secular people do.  And all of a sudden they're forty and they're still not married or they are and have been contracepting so for a dozen years and are finally ready to have those two perfect kids.  Also, prolonged engagements (I think) could traditionally thought to be scandalous.  So while there's a lot to be said for rising above puppy love and making sure you've got the means to get married, there's also a lot to be said for getting married and throwing yourself in God's hands.  I'm sure you know that, I just wanted to highlight the balance that is needed there.  After all, I always assumed that God would never give us so many kids that we would have to go homeless, and if He did, He'd get us a new house.  :)
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#34
(10-19-2012, 05:10 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Absolutely agree about setting a foundation for one's self and being responsible.  And debt is bad.  That being said, there's an extreme for getting one's affairs in orders that should be avoided as well.  In theory, Guardian, what you advise is what most secular people do.  And all of a sudden they're forty and they're still not married or they are and have been contracepting so for a dozen years and are finally ready to have those two perfect kids.  Also, prolonged engagements (I think) could traditionally thought to be scandalous.  So while there's a lot to be said for rising above puppy love and making sure you've got the means to get married, there's also a lot to be said for getting married and throwing yourself in God's hands.  I'm sure you know that, I just wanted to highlight the balance that is needed there.  After all, I always assumed that God would never give us so many kids that we would have to go homeless, and if He did, He'd get us a new house.  :)

Mith,

I think you have a very different view of getting your finances in order than the average secular 40 year old with 0 kids.  Do you need a hugely expensive car, massive house, and minimum 6 figure bank account to make life work?  Probably not.  :)

How are prolonged engagements scandalous?  Just curious.  Pilgrim and I were engaged for 3+ years.  He was finishing grad school and I was finishing my degree as well. 
Reply
#35
(10-19-2012, 05:18 PM)Fontevrault Wrote:
(10-19-2012, 05:10 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Absolutely agree about setting a foundation for one's self and being responsible.  And debt is bad.  That being said, there's an extreme for getting one's affairs in orders that should be avoided as well.  In theory, Guardian, what you advise is what most secular people do.  And all of a sudden they're forty and they're still not married or they are and have been contracepting so for a dozen years and are finally ready to have those two perfect kids.  Also, prolonged engagements (I think) could traditionally thought to be scandalous.  So while there's a lot to be said for rising above puppy love and making sure you've got the means to get married, there's also a lot to be said for getting married and throwing yourself in God's hands.  I'm sure you know that, I just wanted to highlight the balance that is needed there.  After all, I always assumed that God would never give us so many kids that we would have to go homeless, and if He did, He'd get us a new house.  :)

Mith,

I think you have a very different view of getting your finances in order than the average secular 40 year old with 0 kids.  Do you need a hugely expensive car, massive house, and minimum 6 figure bank account to make life work?  Probably not.   :)

How are prolonged engagements scandalous?  Just curious.  Pilgrim and I were engaged for 3+ years.  He was finishing grad school and I was finishing my degree as well. 

Yah, well the point being that how much is enough?  You and I see how obviously ridiculous it is to "need" expensive car, boat, six figure bank account, etc. but most people don't, and I'd venture to say it's because once you start racking it up you want to keep going.  I guess it's about avoiding greed.

As far as scandal, I'm sure there are multiple reasons.  Kayla and I were together for five years before we got married.  Varying from case to case, (in the event someone really isn't "able" to get married right away) it would depend.  I think it would generally be considered scandalous when someone wasn't engaged, and just dating for a long period of time.  Like I said, I'm not positive on that and I didn't live in the preconciliar church so maybe one of the FE elders could chime in on that.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#36
(10-19-2012, 05:10 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Absolutely agree about setting a foundation for one's self and being responsible.  And debt is bad.  That being said, there's an extreme for getting one's affairs in orders that should be avoided as well.  In theory, Guardian, what you advise is what most secular people do.  And all of a sudden they're forty and they're still not married or they are and have been contracepting so for a dozen years and are finally ready to have those two perfect kids.  Also, prolonged engagements (I think) could traditionally thought to be scandalous.  So while there's a lot to be said for rising above puppy love and making sure you've got the means to get married, there's also a lot to be said for getting married and throwing yourself in God's hands.  I'm sure you know that, I just wanted to highlight the balance that is needed there.  After all, I always assumed that God would never give us so many kids that we would have to go homeless, and if He did, He'd get us a new house.  :)

Mith, I'm not arguing in favor of a prolonged engagement.  If a couple is not in a position to get married they have no business dating.  Obviously this is applied on a case by case basis but that's why we have Priests to evaluate and counsel right? I think any good Priest will tell you that if you have a serious amount of debt you are not in a position to get married and that you should not be dating/courting/engaged until you are well on your way to paying it off. 

I'm only 25 and I was 22 when I got married.  While we were dating we put together a budget and had a realistic plan for how much money we wanted to save by the time we wanted to be getting married.  After looking at what we had already saved, plus our salaries/expenses, we agreed that putting a certain amount away was realistic for us.  We dated for 14 months and were engaged for 7 months before we were married.  And when it was all said and done we actually exceeded our goal.  Would we have prolonged our engagement if we didn't hit our goal? Probably not, its not like it was a magic number.  But if we were falling way short of it we may have had to reevaluate the situation and determine what was going on and why we weren't saving money.  Its not about greed and it's certainly not about having a boat, 3 cars, and a massive house.  I have a modest house, and 2 cars, one of which is a mini-van (I mean man-van :grin:).  All I'm stressing is for is managing your finances and not rushing into marriage without being practical and taking responsiblity for the future. 
Reply
#37
(10-19-2012, 08:18 PM)Guardian Wrote:
(10-19-2012, 05:10 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Absolutely agree about setting a foundation for one's self and being responsible.  And debt is bad.  That being said, there's an extreme for getting one's affairs in orders that should be avoided as well.  In theory, Guardian, what you advise is what most secular people do.  And all of a sudden they're forty and they're still not married or they are and have been contracepting so for a dozen years and are finally ready to have those two perfect kids.  Also, prolonged engagements (I think) could traditionally thought to be scandalous.  So while there's a lot to be said for rising above puppy love and making sure you've got the means to get married, there's also a lot to be said for getting married and throwing yourself in God's hands.  I'm sure you know that, I just wanted to highlight the balance that is needed there.  After all, I always assumed that God would never give us so many kids that we would have to go homeless, and if He did, He'd get us a new house.  :)

Mith, I'm not arguing in favor of a prolonged engagement.  If a couple is not in a position to get married they have no business dating.  Obviously this is applied on a case by case basis but that's why we have Priests to evaluate and counsel right? I think any good Priest will tell you that if you have a serious amount of debt you are not in a position to get married and that you should not be dating/courting/engaged until you are well on your way to paying it off. 

I'm only 25 and I was 22 when I got married.  While we were dating we put together a budget and had a realistic plan for how much money we wanted to save by the time we wanted to be getting married.  After looking at what we had already saved, plus our salaries/expenses, we agreed that putting a certain amount away was realistic for us.  We dated for 14 months and were engaged for 7 months before we were married.  And when it was all said and done we actually exceeded our goal.  Would we have prolonged our engagement if we didn't hit our goal? Probably not, its not like it was a magic number.  But if we were falling way short of it we may have had to reevaluate the situation and determine what was going on and why we weren't saving money.  Its not about greed and it's certainly not about having a boat, 3 cars, and a massive house.  I have a modest house, and 2 cars, one of which is a mini-van (I mean man-van :grin:).  All I'm stressing is for is managing your finances and not rushing into marriage without being practical and taking responsiblity for the future. 

I wish Pilgrim and I had done this.  We were both so concentrated on finishing school that we put everything else aside for a later discussion.  In the end, it took us a few years of marriage to figure things out financially and get our act together.  It's funny.  I was doing a shred a thon this week - old paperwork and looked at some financial documents from just 4 years ago.  It's amazing how much our circumstances have changed and our priorities shifted in that time!  I think we have a long way to go but we are making some serious progress. 

Had our parents counseled us to discuss finances in more depth before the wedding, it might have been really helpful.  But, neither family did.  I think they assumed we knew a lot more about money than we really did.  In the end, what helped the most was when I went into banking (for only a few years) and did some financial planning.  I learned quite quickly that a) there were a lot of people out there that were in far worse situations than we were and b) we had some pretty serious choices to make - choices that would change the rest of our lives.  I hated being a banker - it's a souless profession for the most part - but I did learn a great deal that has helped us over the years. 
Reply
#38
(10-17-2012, 01:44 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 04:42 PM)Graham Wrote: I never felt so much pressure to be making money hand-over-fist until I became a traditional Catholic. Now I feel angry everyday because I'm poor. I have a wealth of talent but apparently that counts for nothing with arch-pragmatist, "what's the dollar value" Trad Dad.

I'm an idealist and I'm pursuing a job that satisfies me even if it won't pay like an engineer, lawyer, or doctor job would. If that's incomprehensible to Trad Dad then damn the old fool, he doesn't get to decide who his of-age daughter should be marrying anyway.

My daughter married a farmer.  This is definitely a job done more for ideals than money.  My husband and I were far more interested in our son-in-law's character than his finances.

I appreciate what you're saying, but farmers usually own quite a bit of land, which means they're comparatively well off. He may be idealistic, but otherwise it isn't a clean comparison, unless your son-in-law is a farmer with no land.

Anyhow, I can save $10,000 a year - I've done it before. If Trad Dad wants to see 'the money' I can show him the money. In 'exchange' (since Trad Dad insists on viewing marriage as something like a business deal), I want a pious, obedient young lady with homemaking skills. Can Trad Dad deliver on his end?
Reply
#39
(10-21-2012, 04:08 PM)Graham Wrote:
(10-17-2012, 01:44 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 04:42 PM)Graham Wrote: I never felt so much pressure to be making money hand-over-fist until I became a traditional Catholic. Now I feel angry everyday because I'm poor. I have a wealth of talent but apparently that counts for nothing with arch-pragmatist, "what's the dollar value" Trad Dad.

I'm an idealist and I'm pursuing a job that satisfies me even if it won't pay like an engineer, lawyer, or doctor job would. If that's incomprehensible to Trad Dad then damn the old fool, he doesn't get to decide who his of-age daughter should be marrying anyway.

My daughter married a farmer.  This is definitely a job done more for ideals than money.  My husband and I were far more interested in our son-in-law's character than his finances.

I appreciate what you're saying, but farmers usually own quite a bit of land, which means they're comparatively well off. He may be idealistic, but otherwise it isn't a clean comparison, unless your son-in-law is a farmer with no land.

Anyhow, I can save $10,000 a year - I've done it before. If Trad Dad wants to see 'the money' I can show him the money. In 'exchange' (since Trad Dad insists on viewing marriage as something like a business deal), I want a pious, obedient young lady with homemaking skills. Can Trad Dad deliver on his end?

My son-in-law does not own land. 

I doubt that many fathers view it as a business deal. My own father saw my marriage as turning over his financial responsibility for me to my husband.  My father saw himself as the provider for his family and he wanted me to marry a man who would provide for me.  This what he understood to be a husband's duty.  Although my father is not a traditional Catholic he is an old-fashioned man and is probably much like a trad in this.
Reply
#40
(10-21-2012, 05:21 PM)JayneK Wrote: My son-in-law does not own land. 

Well I apologize for assuming, I guess I was looking for ways to feel sorry for myself. What does he farm?

Quote:I doubt that many fathers view it as a business deal. My own father saw my marriage as turning over his financial responsibility for me to my husband.  My father saw himself as the provider for his family and he wanted me to marry a man who would provide for me.  This what he understood to be a husband's duty.  Although my father is not a traditional Catholic he is an old-fashioned man and is probably much like a trad in this.

I understand, but I guess I'm writing from my own peculiar experience of traditional Catholicism. There is a dismaying 'fifteesism', like many people are conflating respectable middle classdom with being Traditional. I'm about to quote a rabid millenarian heretic, but:

Jesus & his Apostles & Disciples were all Artists
A Poet a Painter a Musician an Architect : the Man
Or Woman who is not one of these is not a Christian

That's my perspective, and it doesn't seem to be shared in my milieu.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)