Adult children are getting help from their parents

Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:

• Adult children are getting help from their parents

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, what we need is more common sense.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
Common breaking down the world's nonsense about how American common
sense will see us through with the common sense of Houston.
I'm just pro common sense for Houston. From Houston. This
is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by viewind

(00:27):
dot Com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.

Speaker 3 (00:31):
We are going to start the show today with a
bit of a dilemma, I think, and this is not
This is not an easy one, which is why I
don't think we have a lot of people calling in
on this on the Morning Show today and kat r
h because well for two reasons. Well, I guess I
should start with this, right, Let's start with what the
story is. The story is the latest polling data tells

(00:55):
us that approximately fifty percent, fifty percent of adult children
are getting help from their parents in surviving monetary help
from their parents in surviving, you know, paying either paying
the rent, or paying the mortgage payment, or paying the

(01:16):
utility bills or the car payment or whatever it may be.
Fifty percent half of all adults are getting that kind
of help from their parents. That is, that's pretty amazing,
and it tells us a couple of things. I think
It tells, for one thing, it tells us that as parents,

(01:39):
we are pretty much suckers for our kids. Right. It's
pretty easy for at least many of us to be
talked into helping our kids. I don't know a kid
who wouldn't probably try, although I don't think mine never
really did, you know. I have to say my boys
where I think set up for success, and they were
told pretty early on, hey, listen, you're an adult now.

(02:03):
You know you, uh, you know you you. You are
charting your own path here as far as your career
and as far as your income goes. I hope you're
very successful of what you do. But you know, you're
an adult now, and if you have your own families
and you have to you know, you have to pay
for your families. Which is not to say I'm, you know,
Ebenezer Scrooge. It's not like I won't buy a Christmas
present or a Birthday gift or something along those lines.

(02:25):
But I don't think my boys never reached out and
asked me if I'd be willing to help with, you know,
with a bill on this that or the other thing,
or or ask me to loan them money in any
stretch of imagination. I think that that's a in my world,
that would be an act of desperation. If I had
ever asked my father for money to pay a bill,

(02:48):
I would have had to been in some form of desperation.
And I don't think I would have been willing to
admit I was that desperitude to either one of my parents,
you know, not that I not that I necessarily think
that they would have given me any money. I don't
think they would have. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have
so anyway, Uh, it's it's it's a tough thing. It's

(03:09):
a tough thing to see it in yourself. It's it's
it's a lot easier to see it in friends and family,
right when when they're doing this and you know, we
we did get a couple of calls on it. I
thought i'd share them with you here. Where Where Where
do you draw the line on this stuff? I think
that's the hardest part is where do you draw the line? Jimmy,

(03:30):
I feel like there is a fine line between helping
a child and enabling a child. Yeah, but where's the line?
Where is that line? I think I think it might
be as simple as if I I mean, I if

(03:52):
I if you're asking me to put the line somewhere,
and I guess it's my show, so I might as
well put the line somewhere. To me, here, here's a
place where I think we could definitely draw a line.
If you had a child that came to you and
they had something they really truly needed, or they were
really in trouble with something, and they asked you if

(04:16):
they could borrow money, that'd be a whole different world
than asking me if they can have the money, in
other words, a gift. I don't think I would be
willing to gift money, but I might be willing to
loan money as long as it's understood that the money

(04:36):
is to be paid back, and when it is to
be paid back, and under what terms it is to
be paid back. Now, I know that sounds very Oh,
that's easy for you to say, Well maybe, and maybe
in reality and be that much more difficult to execute.
But you know, I think that's where if I had
to draw a line, I think that's where I would
draw the line. I love this guy's answer.

Speaker 4 (04:55):
My son graduated college debt free. He bought the house
directly acros from me. His job has him working like crazy.
So I randomly Mo's yard for him.

Speaker 3 (05:07):
That's it, that's his gift. I'm gotting the grass for you, son.
I see how hard you're working, how busy you are.
I'm gonna cut the grass for you. I like that.
That's a gift that's very easy to give. It's also
a way of encouraging your kid of saying, listen, man,
I appreciate you haven't got a lot of free time.
I'm gonna try to get you a little bit for

(05:27):
at least you're not going to spend an hour and
a half more in the grass this weekend. You can
spend it doing something you actually like to do. But
what a great way of giving your kid about in
the back and say, I see how hard you're working.
I appreciate how hard you're working. And here's another one
that we didn't have on this morning. It's an ex
husband story. So you know that's got to be good.

Speaker 5 (05:49):
Hey, Jimmy, my ex husband was helped out an excessive
amountain by his parents. He wouldn't go for long periods
without having a job, and so he would call them
for whatever it was I couldn't end up paying for.
After paying all the bills, and everything else and for
the house. And then it got to the point that
he just thought out refused to get a job because
his parents would continue to help him out. But when

(06:10):
they give him money or extra spending money, would he
use that to buy other stuff for us?

Speaker 6 (06:16):
No?

Speaker 5 (06:16):
Absolutely not.

Speaker 3 (06:17):
So she ran out of time. She used Oliver thirty seconds.

Speaker 7 (06:23):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (06:24):
Of course, you know, if I'd had her on the
phone and actually having a live conversation or the question
would have probably been, so why did you marry this loser?
Or or was he a really good BS artist? He
convinced you somehow that he wasn't that guy that he
turned out to be. I guess that's how. That's how

(06:44):
I guess how. That's how those of us who have
been divorced end up being divorced. Right is were we
got blinders on when we marry somebody and we don't
you know, we are we are really investigating who they
really are and what they're really all about. I have
to say my ex wife, her her her parents were
very generous. They were and they they routinely, you know,

(07:09):
gave you know, gifts like I know that for example,
they put central air conditioning in our house, and I
remember at the time feeling I didn't ask them to
do it, by any stretch of the imagination, and I
felt rather guilty that they did it, and I didn't
pay them back for doing it because they didn't want
to be paid back for doing it. And I'm sure

(07:30):
they thought they were being helpful, and luckily in our
in our case, at least in my case, it didn't
have any impact on making me lazy or more inclined
to expect that kind of help. I certainly didn't, not
that I didn't appreciate what they did, but but it,
I mean, it is a fine line, it really is.
But I don't think we do our kids any favor
as adults if we constantly enable them to do what

(07:53):
it is they're doing. If you've got to if you've
got a child that, for whatever reason, you know you've
turned into somebody who doesn't want to work and doesn't
want to support themselves, and you continue to support them,
then you're never going to get a resolution to the
problem because you helped create the monster. All right, quick
little break back with Boorn in a moment, Jimmy Barrett,
show here a name nine fifty KHRC. All right, I

(08:33):
start with this story because this story is a strange story,
and you know, who knows, who knows if there's any
any truth or not. The do you know what the
Ark of the Covenant is? You know what the Ark
of the Covenant is? Right? The sea? I always, I always.

(08:53):
I'm almost kind of feel weird sharing the story at
all here because it's like, I wonder when they when
they printed this story, they went, why are we printing
this story? This is just craziness. But supposedly they are
declassified CIA documents claiming that the Arc of the Covenant
was located by a psychic. Yeah, located by a psychic.

(09:20):
You know the Arc of the Covenant. You know you
saw did you see Indiana Jones? Right? Yeah? The Indiana
Jones was in Raiders of the Lost Arc was looking
for the for the Ark of the Covenant that way
back in nineteen eighty one. Now, for those who aren't
familiar with what it is, according to Jewish and Christian tradition,
it's a gold plated wooden chest housing the two tablets

(09:42):
bearing the ten Commandments. And they would, you know, they
would carry around the tank commandments in the arc, which
which God, of course gave to Moses between the thirteenth
and sixteenth centuries whenever that was, CIA conducted experiments as
part of the secret Projects soun Streak with individuals known
as all remote viewers. A remote viewer, if you're not

(10:06):
familiar with that term, is kind of like a clairvoyant
who you know. They concentrate on something and then they
claim that they can't get information about something. The don't
have to be anywhere near that something to get the information.
So supposedly there's a CIA document which I haven't seen,
but a CIA document they claims that remote viewers found

(10:26):
the Arc of the Covenant. And of course the question
would be if they found where the hell is it?
It sounds like a crazy urban legend kind of thing.
But but I'm looking at a copy of the of
the of the document. It's called Project Sun Streak Notice
Intelligence Sources and Methods involved and the date on this

(10:51):
is the fifth of December of eighty eight, nineteen eighty eight.
Access to describe the target identified is coordinated and it
says Arc of Covenant. It goes on to say into
the evaluation viewer numbers zero three to two. That's the
remote viewer attained excellent site contact, doing very well with
stage four structure. Viewer also exhibits the ability to keep

(11:13):
AOL to a minimum. I'm not sure what the AOL
stands for. Have to be careful with editing, though this
is not seem to be a problem at this time.
Just something to watch for. Huh yeah. Supposedly, this remote
viewer in a remote viewing session on the fifth of
December of nineteen eighty eight, this viewer number thirty two,

(11:35):
was tasked to identifying the arc, according to CIA documents
recently circulating on social media. The documents were first declassified
in August of two thousand. They allegedly did not know
the object they were being tasked to find. The psychic
described a location in the Middle East that they claimed,
how's the object? Said? It was being protected by entities?

(12:00):
What does that mean? Target is a container. This container
has another container inside of it. The target is fashioned
of wood, gold and silver, they said, allegedly not knowing
they were trying to find. The arc similar in shape
to a coffin and is decorated with a seraphim. The
declassified document shows several pages of drawings depicting one of

(12:20):
the four seraphim standing out on the corners of the arc,
along with a drawing of mummies lined up on a wall.
Visuals of surrounding buildings indicated the presence of mosque domes.
They added they said the object was hidden underground in dark,
wet conditions. There is an aspect of spirituality, information, lessons,
and the historical knowledge far beyond what we now know.

(12:43):
According to the remote viewer, they describe the arc as
being protected by entities. They would destroy individuals who attempted
to damage the object. The target is protected by entities
and can only be opened by those who are authorized
to do so. This container will not cannot be opened
until the time is deemed correct. Individuals opening the container
by prying or striking are destroyed by the containers protectors

(13:07):
through the use of a power unknown to us. Okay,
it sounds like the Art of the Covenant, doesn't it.
So it's underground somewhere in the Middle East, and I assume,
I mean, if any of this is true, I assume
it's still there. Isn't that weird? That's very very weird? Okay.

(13:27):
Also weird was Tim Ball's appearance in Rosenberg this this weekend.
Oh yeah, Speaking of Texas, there were a tesla protests
that were supposed to go on. There was a major
one in San Antonio, which only you know, there's like
maybe a dozen people. They did it twice at two

(13:49):
different you know Tesla dealerships, one in the morning and
one in the afternoon. Maybe about a dozen people showed
up at either one of them, and they were all
seemingly were, you know, the paid protester types. We had
one in Houston, which same kind of thing. So the
only ones who are interested in protesting, you know, the
Tesla thing, are the organized groups, the organized groups that

(14:14):
are generally funded by people like George Soros. So that
was a real buzz. But we did have Tim Walls,
the former vice presidential candidate, in Rosenberg over the weekend
and proving once again that the Democrats really don't I

(14:35):
don't think the left really doesn't have a chance. Mainstream Democrats.
Let's talk about them for a second. I don't think
mainstream Democrats really have a chance going forward unless they
get rid of this progressive wing of the party. They
are doubling down and tripling down on who they are
and what they stand for. And that was pretty apparent

(14:57):
from the comments that Tim Walls made here. He is
in Rosenberg, doubling down on the policies that led to
the election landslide for Trump and some reaction on the
other end from Democrat. At least it used to be
a Clinton polster Mark Penn who can't believe what he sees.

Speaker 6 (15:18):
We let them define the issue on immigration, we let
them define the issue on DNA DEI, and we let
them define what woke is.

Speaker 8 (15:27):
We got ourselves in this.

Speaker 6 (15:28):
Mess because we weren't bold enough to stand up and say,
you damn right, we're proud of these policies. We're going
to put them in and we're going to execute them.

Speaker 1 (15:36):
Well, the Democrats are falling off a cliff. I haven't
seen anything like this, although you can go back to
nineteen seventy two when they got one state or nineteen
eighty four when they got on in state. Look, the
Democratic policies really put the Democrats in a hole. And
I think in retrospect they're looking at the Biden presidency

(15:57):
and saying, I don't know how he was president. He
was weak internationally, he caused inflation at home, he left
the border open, he didn't do anything about crime. I
think that in retrospect, people who are looking back and
they're wondering how on earth did they even vote Democratic?
And that is a really big problem for this party.

Speaker 7 (16:17):
Well, not the leadership. You heard what Tim Waltzh just said.
We're going to put these policies in, We're going to
stand by our policies. And then he claims that the
Republican Republicans set the tone for immigration.

Speaker 8 (16:28):
Now they didn't.

Speaker 7 (16:28):
Joe Biden had a wide open border. The Democrats set
the tone for illegal migrants coming into the country, not
the Republicans.

Speaker 8 (16:35):
They thought about it all the way.

Speaker 1 (16:38):
Yeah, I really don't know what planet he's on. Frankly,
He's not really likely to be Democratic leadership unless the
Democratic Party drives itself down to a single state again.
I think on border politics and border policy, that is
where President Trump is getting his highest ratings, you know,

(16:58):
near sixty percent at high fifties. I closed the border rapidly.
People see all the things that the Biden administration was
saying about the border to have been nonsts.

Speaker 3 (17:09):
Frankly, yeah, Budy, Hey, y'all, just keep doing what you're doing.
That's fine. And speaking of polling, one more polling piece
for you. This comes from actually CBS face to the nation.
So this is a CBS News poll, so you know already,
you know, I have to wonder whether or not it's
slanted a little bit. But what they did is they

(17:30):
took a poll on the economy and how you're feeling
about the economy just a few months into the Trump presidency.
Here is their chief polster on CBS's face the nation.

Speaker 9 (17:43):
We know that people still say the economy is bad.
We know that prices and inflation are the top reason
they give for why. So in this poll, we find
that the president's approval for specifically handling the economy and
inflation are both ticked down. Now let's talk about these tariffs,
because look, it's early in the administration. So I think
the key gauge is what do people think he's trying

(18:05):
to do? And here we see a mismatch. They think
he's putting too much focus on trying to put in
tariffs and not enough focus on trying to lower prices.
Now the mismatch there is the administration argues, well, that'll
have positive impact, right, So I asked, what do you
think will happen when tariff's go into effect. People think

(18:26):
in the short term that it'll raise prices, but also
in the long term, there's a lot of people who
think tariffs will raise prices. So the administration hasn't quite
connected the dots on that argument yet. Now what happens
next is you get people think with uncertainty in the
stock market that his policies are having a negative effect.

Speaker 8 (18:47):
There I should add.

Speaker 9 (18:48):
This, he does not entirely own this economy yet, speaking
of it being early, right, ask who's to blame for inflation?

Speaker 8 (18:56):
Right, and that he shares with Joe Biden.

Speaker 5 (19:00):
Bill.

Speaker 9 (19:00):
But one of the things to watch going forward is
expectations coming into the administration. Before he took office, a
lot of people thought that Trump's policies would make them
financially better off. You asked that question today and far
fewer Americans think that, even far fewer Republicans think that,
And that expectations game is key.

Speaker 3 (19:22):
We don't have a lot of patience doing it's It
takes more than a few months to fix what was
so broken over the course of four years of the
Biden administration. I mean, I don't think the inflation monster
is going to go away, not right away anyway. I
think the projection University of Michigan Projection for whatever that's worth.

(19:44):
I think is that we're supposed to have inflation right
around five percent for the next year or so. Over
the course of the next twelve months, you know, prices will
go up about five percent on average, and then four
point one percent for five to ten years down the road.
I don't I don't don't know how you. I don't
know how you possibly project five to ten years down
the road. I would not be surprised if we have

(20:05):
a five percent inflation rate for the next year, because
it's going to take a while for the policies to
go into effect that could could effectuate change there. But
you know, you got to give it a little time,
don't you. Of course you do, all right, it didn't
take They almost broke it overnight. They came close to
breaking it overnight. But it's gonna take more than overnight
to fix it. All right, quick little break, We are

(20:26):
back with bornem I'm a Jimmy Barrett Show. You're an
AM nine fifty k PRC. All right, I thought many
we spent just a little time on education here today

(20:47):
on the show. I saw Education Secretary of Linda McMahon.
That's you know, I guess it makes sense if you're
a Linda McMahon to take a job that you know
not gonna be around for all that long when you
I mean, the woman's rich, right, I mean, it's not
like she needs the gig. And she was hired specifically

(21:08):
to help dismantle the department. And I'm sure, you know,
depending upon what they can legally do, I mean can
I don't think. I don't think anybody but Congress can
officially eliminate the Education Department. I think Congress is the
only one that could do that. But you can basically
pare it down to virtually nothing, which is I think
what they're in the process of doing at this point.

(21:30):
And there's nothing really that the Education Department does. In fact,
she was on Fox over the weekend talking about you know,
in fact, they don't they don't decide curriculum, you know,
they they aren't really all they are is a funding
mechanism that that's about all they do anyway. So here's
Linda McMahon, I guess, making the case for why her

(21:52):
department doesn't need to be around and for obvious reasons,
why there needs to be major changes in how we
go about educating our children.

Speaker 10 (22:00):
It's really to look at what education systems are really
working with these innovative governors. And this doesn't have anything
to do with the Department of Education, per se. Department
of Education doesn't educate one child. We don't decide on curriculum,
we don't hire teachers. That's best done at the local level.
And you can see those results in states like Mississippi
and states like Louisiana, which just had also incredible improvement

(22:25):
and what's called the NAPE scores or the Nation's report card,
and what we saw really was those states returning to
basics what it's called classical learning, teaching reading from phonics,
teaching math again with memorization techniques, because then you build
on that foundation and you can increase the level of

(22:45):
learning in a much shorter period of time.

Speaker 8 (22:47):
And that's what a lot of the states.

Speaker 10 (22:48):
Florida has been doing that, Iowa is leading a lot
on that kind of innovation.

Speaker 8 (22:54):
And that's what we want to see. We want to be.

Speaker 10 (22:55):
Able to provide states with good best practices, good tools,
you know, to help them really get back to basics
and get these scores up so that you know, our
students are not running last in the world. And then
we're not continuing to spend so much money, you know,
more for pupil than any other country. When you think

(23:16):
about the fact that the Social Department of Education was
set up. We've spent over three trillion dollars to only
watch our scores and our performance decline.

Speaker 8 (23:26):
We're doing something wrong.

Speaker 3 (23:27):
And we need to change well, and here's part of
what you can change. What are we spending the money on.
I know we're doing a feature on the Morning show
tomorrow and kat rh just kind of highlighting, you know,
how much how much money spent at the at the
average school system on things that have absolutely nothing to

(23:47):
do with educating your child. The superintendent salaries are crazy.
The superintendents have multiple assistant superintendents, just like principles have
multiple assistant principles. If you were to take your average
school system and take a look at how many people
are you know, working at the central office, working in

(24:10):
the superintendent's office, working in the principal's office, none of
whom have anything to do with educating a child, you
would probably be I think a little shocked and horrified
that we spend so much money on that and so
little money, relatively speaking, on actually educating your child, you know,
it's it's it's not that we don't spend enough money.

(24:33):
We spend plenty of money. It's how we spend the money.
What what are we spending the money on? And the
money is not going to the things that actually teach
your child for the most part, certainly not as much
as should be going there. So it's not to me,
it's not a matter of raising more money for schools.
That we've proven that that's not the problem. The problem

(24:55):
is not how much we spend. The problem is how
we spend it. And I think that's high there. Now.
She mentioned Mississippi. Mississippi, I mean, just about any poll
that you've ever taken a look at since time immemorial,
since had been keeping track of this stuff, Mississippi is
always usually last or next to last, or within two
or three spots of being last, in a whole variety

(25:16):
of different areas. Poverty, you know, one of the poorest states.
You know, schools there, you know, traditionally not done very
very well. Their test scores have been coming way way up.
Lendam Mann just mentioned that. So I saw Governor Tate Reeves.
Tate Reeves is the governor of Mississippi. UH and he
was talking on Fox about some of the things that

(25:37):
they've been doing.

Speaker 11 (25:38):
This is our one big, beautiful bill in Mississippi. We've
been working to cut taxes and moving towards eliminating the
income tax, and I was finally able to sign a
bill into law this week that, over time, gets us
to accomplish exactly that goal. In Mississippi. We believe government
ought to take less so that our people get to

(25:59):
keep more of their money. You see not only economic
growth in those states with no income tax, you also
see population growth in those states. And we think we
have a beautiful state in Mississippi. We've got a beautiful
coastline on the Gulf of America. And I will just
tell you that we have seen significant economic growth over
the last five years. We've seen over thirty billion dollars

(26:22):
in new capital investment flowing.

Speaker 8 (26:23):
To our state.

Speaker 11 (26:24):
And we think by eliminating our income tax, we're going
to see not only more income and capital flow into
our state. We think we're going to see more people
flow into our state. And so it's an opportunity for
us to be more competitive on the national landscape, and.

Speaker 3 (26:39):
We think it's going to work beautifully well, and he
talked more about the elimination the income text there and
he did about education certainly, but do we not think
that that's also going to have a positive impact in education.
More corporates, more corporations moving into Mississippi, which has been
very rural, more people moving into the state, higher income

(27:00):
people living in the state. I mean, a rising tide
lifts all boats. You know, you have more people making
more money in the state like Mississippi, and that's going
to raise everything up, including the education. And part of
how they're going to do it there is by eliminating
the income tax, the state income tax. They're they're going
to become the tenth state that does not have an

(27:21):
income tax. Is you take a look and he you know,
he didn't mention Texas by name or Florida by name,
but you take a look at two of the states
which have enjoyed, you know, the most prosperity in recent years,
and Texas and Florida at the top of the heap,
neither of which has the state income tax. So all
those things can can you know, lead to actually making

(27:44):
more money for the state because you know, you'll you'll
end up you'll end up making a whole lot more
money at the end of the day. I mean, look
how much money, how much of a surplus we've had
here in Texas just on quote unquote property taxes. Now,
our property taxes need to get lower too. It'll be
interest to see what Mississippi does. Is Mississippi is going
to keep their property taxes relatively low, or they're going

(28:06):
to raise their property taxes. But anyway, you get the idea.
All right now for two day, thank you for listening,
appreciate it. Y'all have a great day. We'll see you
tomorrow morning bright nearly five am over on News Radio
seven forty KTRH. We are back here at four on
AM nine fifty KPRC.