What happened to the husband/father? Why isn't he contributing child support? Isn't that the real problem? I mean, the CEO isn't the babies' father is s/he?
She has no business complaining about her wages. NO doubt she's a democrat so she is getting what she deserves and that is to be a peon for the rest of her life. Stupid skank can't figure out why the democrats want open borders is so there is s steady stream of ready willing and able workers to take jobs then she deserves to wallow in poverty. When there is this steady stream there is no hope for higher wages and benefits. The democrat voter has been so dumbed down they can't figure this out.
She makes roughly $41K... say after takes that's $28k take home.
Say mortgage/rent is $1k a month, that leaves $16 K.
Car payment at $300 a month.. now she has $12,400.
Take out another $300 a month for utilities... That leaves $8,800.
Lets figure that medicaid is covering all her medical, and food stamps half of her groceries, so I'll go $150 out of pocket per week for groceries....
So now, she is left with $1000 for the year ($83 a month) to put clothes on 4 children for the year.. not figuring gas or incidentals, or car repair, or work clothes.
From her perspective one guy making 12 million dollars a year would seem a little excessive.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying I'm trying to understand.
Salisbury based Piedmont Airlines simply sucks. I read that the Salisbury airport applied for a grant to bring a new airline into Salisbury to replace Piedmont. What is the status of that grant?
As usual in AA 'couples', the father is absent and offers no support to his children and thus it is assumed that the taxpayer will pay to support the children, not the father. The government needs to start confiscating any and all property of the known father who refuses to support the children he made.
10 comments:
Father(s)?
Entitled dirt bag
The first line ("...makes more money than me" (sic)) gives a clue. Poor command of the grammar of your native language is not a good sign.
My guess is he makes more money than I also, because he is probably more skilled.
"So me and my husband could go places..."
Again poor language skills in your first (and only??) language is an indication of why you have not risen to become CEO.
But, I am really glad you got those flight benefits.
My husband and I have always wanted to travel, too.
What happened to the husband/father? Why isn't he contributing child support? Isn't that the real problem? I mean, the CEO isn't the babies' father is s/he?
Ten years a baggage handler/umbrella holder with no upward mobility and no change in salary, AND the union rep? Something's fishy here.
She has no business complaining about her wages. NO doubt she's a democrat so she is getting what she deserves and that is to be a peon for the rest of her life. Stupid skank can't figure out why the democrats want open borders is so there is s steady stream of ready willing and able workers to take jobs then she deserves to wallow in poverty. When there is this steady stream there is no hope for higher wages and benefits. The democrat voter has been so dumbed down they can't figure this out.
She makes roughly $41K... say after takes that's $28k take home.
Say mortgage/rent is $1k a month, that leaves $16 K.
Car payment at $300 a month.. now she has $12,400.
Take out another $300 a month for utilities... That leaves $8,800.
Lets figure that medicaid is covering all her medical, and food stamps half of her groceries, so I'll go $150 out of pocket per week for groceries....
So now, she is left with $1000 for the year ($83 a month) to put clothes on 4 children for the year.. not figuring gas or incidentals, or car repair, or work clothes.
From her perspective one guy making 12 million dollars a year would seem a little excessive.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying I'm trying to understand.
Salisbury based Piedmont Airlines simply sucks. I read that the Salisbury airport applied for a grant to bring a new airline into Salisbury to replace Piedmont. What is the status of that grant?
As usual in AA 'couples', the father is absent and offers no support to his children and thus it is assumed that the taxpayer will pay to support the children, not the father.
The government needs to start confiscating any and all property of the known father who refuses to support the children he made.
Post a Comment