# Fixed Income



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Are there any of you out there that never really thought about what a "fixed" income really means? When I worked, I used to hear the expression "fixed" income a lot. I used to think that my income was fixed because I was salaried and made x number of dollars a month. It took retirement and setting up a budget to really get what a fixed income really is. When I worked, any overtime I worked was "extra" income and the bonus at the end of the year was "extra" income, plus I would get a merit raise every year so my income would go up. Now that I am retired and on social security and a pension I finally realize what "fixed" actually means. My pension is fixed at the same amount every month, every year for the rest of my life. Sometimes Social Security will go up a few dollars, but basically it is the same every month, every year for the rest of my life. When any company like Direct TV or Comcast try to raise what I am paying for their service, I call them immediately to get my cost back down. Where do they think that extra money for the increased amount on the bill is going to come from? My income does not increase and will be the same the rest of my life. I know there are a lot of you that are on fixed incomes, too. I just wonder how many were ignorant like me as to what that really meant.


----------



## janie48 (May 18, 2011)

I'm on pension and ss also, and was told retire, you'll make more money than what you make now. RIGHT!!! Another fairy tale!! janie48


----------



## beejay (May 27, 2011)

No,I knew what it meant because I had watched my Mother struggle. Now that I am on a fixed income and have been for the last 20 years it still comes as something hard to deal with sometimes.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

The only resource I can see is banding together to save and increase spending money.


----------



## PatriciaDF (Jan 29, 2011)

My husband and I have been retired for over 10 years. We are managing ok on our "fixed" incomes, but we do not have cable tv or many of the other "extras" that many people take for granted. I am not complaining, but we do have to watch where every dollar goes.


----------



## grammyv (Feb 11, 2011)

We are experiencing "fixed income". But, we have found there are small odd jobs that many will not do: cleaning our church, baby/child care, "fix it" projects, mending, ironing, etc. that give us "discretionary income" for yarn, books, treats for the GK. Just a thought.

Keep on knitting.


----------



## kiwiannie (Jul 30, 2011)

I am on a fixed budget so I have leant what it means only to well. :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## MarciasKnitting (Sep 23, 2012)

Love the idea of banding together! Always harken back to college and what a close group of "girls" I lived with in a dorm. I see a community of women in a college town that "rent" out space in exchange for cleaning, cooking, tutoring etc. Each person would have their own space and shared space. I see huge garden, weaving, knitting, yoga, informal learning & sharing of skills.


----------



## Edith M (Aug 10, 2011)

It's a whole 'nother country, isn't it? I have had to rethink the meaning of want and need. Thanks to my son I have all I need. Now he too is retired and I am having to teach him the difference between want and need. I have only SS, no retirement as all our income went to raising 5 great kids. No regrets in that area. I like my life, even though I can see a lot of things I would love to change.


----------



## blavell (Mar 18, 2011)

I've looked into doing some of these things also but, I find that no one wants to pay, they expect me to "volunteer" to do there things. I would love to volunteer but, I need the money. I was an RN before I retired & I have even had people; the church, schools, charitable organizations etc., expect me to volunteer my services as a nurse.


grammyv said:


> We are experiencing "fixed income". But, we have found there are small odd jobs that many will not do: cleaning our church, baby/child care, "fix it" projects, mending, ironing, etc. that give us "discretionary income" for yarn, books, treats for the GK. Just a thought.
> 
> Keep on knitting.


----------



## Scruffy's Mum (Feb 20, 2013)

And when you think, most people get paid either every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, with 52 weeks in a year there are actually 13 x 4 week (months) - does that make sense? Soc Sec is only 12 times a year. I know what I'm trying to say - but not sure I said it very well.


----------



## Crochetnknit (Apr 10, 2013)

We had to move out of our happy community to another state where housing was cheaper in order to live on our SS "fixed income".

We never thought it would come down to that but the economic climate messed with our incomes, our reserves, and a bunch of 'bad luck incidents' left us living on only our social security incomes.

So, to answer your question, yes, we know what fixed income is.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

.


----------



## Valkyrie (Feb 26, 2011)

I know what a fixed income is supposed to be, and our ages entitle us to that, buttt, my husband at 69 still works a small part-time job that he enjoys, so that helps. We have SS and both have a pension. And that 3rd leg of a stool that we were always advised about, the 401K? That has helped, but with the economic downturn, not enough. So our needs are satisfied but our wants (travel, home improvement, nice gifts for family), well, that is just a fantasy now. But ther really is a 4th leg to that stool that is supposed to keep us secure after retirement, and that is the assests we accumulated throughout the years. Our mortgage should be paid off, but it isn't (Try putting 3 kids through good colleges before it was even tax deductible and the middle class had no help when it came to student or parental loans, and grants, none of that to us) then you can guess why we still have a mortgage. Glad my husband likes his job as he will need to work another 5 yrs at least.


----------



## Montana Gramma (Dec 19, 2012)

Crochetnknit said:


> We had to move out of our happy community to another state where housing was cheaper in order to live on our SS "fixed income".
> 
> We never thought it would come down to that but the economic climate messed with our incomes, our reserves, and a bunch of 'bad luck incidents' left us living on only our social security incomes.
> 
> So, to answer your question, yes, we know what fixed income is.


We will likely not be able to stay in our area either, down the road. This is a typical tourist area , very expensive and real estate taxes have gone through the roof. We have saved, but cost index rises faster than interest, that in it self is a joke any more. I do all kinds of odd jobs on my days off,mostly for fun and travel $ but will not be doing that forever. No need to worry about buying supplies tho' my stash of all is a forever past my life stash! At least once a month we look at one another and say let's just sell it all. Except the stash!! And the 5 welders and the helicopter!! Priorities change to be sure, I certainly do not need a 9 shelf library of pattern books. Time to cull again. Does anyone know of a quilting site similar to this? 40 years of collecting or gifts.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Valkyrie said:


> I know what a fixed income is supposed to be, and our ages entitle us to that, buttt, my husband at 69 still works a small part-time job that he enjoys, so that helps. We have SS and both have a pension. And that 3rd leg of a stool that we were always advised about, the 401K? That has helped, but with the economic downturn, not enough. So our needs are satisfied but our wants (travel, home improvement, nice gifts for family), well, that is just a fantasy now. But ther really is a 4th leg to that stool that is supposed to keep us secure after retirement, and that is the assests we accumulated throughout the years. Our mortgage should be paid off, but it isn't (Try putting 3 kids through good colleges before it was even tax deductible and the middle class had no help when it came to student or parental loans, and grants, none of that to us) then you can guess why we still have a mortgage. Glad my husband likes his job as he will need to work another 5 yrs at least.


I know what you mean by the "assets" we are supposed to accumulate. Like yours, our mortgage that should have been paid off isn't. I helped my daughter raise her two boys. I lost $80,000 out of my savings plan thru work in 2008 when the bubble burst. When I retired, I rolled over what was left in more secure investments. I haven't touched this money until this year when I turned 70 1/2 in June and the Internal Revenue Service makes you take out a percentage so they can start getting their taxes. My husband is still working and collecting Social Security. He makes custom made boat tops out of our home. If he didn't still work, we would not be able to pay all of our bills. It has become a real challenge to try to save money where I can.


----------



## chickkie (Oct 26, 2011)

I have never heard of being able to call the cable or other companies and have them reverse the increase. I wish that were true where we live.

I do know that I have been selling my stash of books (or trying to sell them) during the summer to pay for health insurance for the winter and now since we have to pay for our own internet this year, I am hoping to sell enough books to pay for that. Fixed income means no more comes in but far more goes out.


----------



## Irish knitter (Mar 29, 2011)

I had no "clue" what a "fixed income" was until I lost my job. I gave money away freely to whom ever needed it; (even my customers who needed milk for their children) I would tell them "I have it; you need it".....NOW...it is another story! I am knitting out of my stash; cannot afford to drive my car; cannot afford a lot of things that I TOOK FOR GRANTED....this has really opened my eyes! I am on SS permanently because of medical injuries. I had no clue about meds costing so much!!! And when there are 5 weeks in a month!!!
I have come to a rude awakening.....so if I am crabby or rude will you just pm me and let me know...please??!! Maybe I do not know how I sound as some days I get overwhelmed with just surviving.
I had the idea that I was "set" for retirement as I had $ 200,000.00 set aside....guess what? My husband gambled it away on the stock market....all he had to do was divert everything into our "medical account" and withdraw it all!!!!


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Stay out of NYS. Taxes thru the roof. High costs. I keep thinking of moving out from time to time. I'd like to know why the government keeps robbing the SS fund.


----------



## LEE1313 (Jan 25, 2011)

Oh mercy do I understand "fixed income".
There are nights I lay in bed and cry and cry.
I worked all my life, sometimes 3 jobs at a time to raise my 2 kids and care for them.
And now I think a great day is when I can meet friends at KFC where I can get lunch for $3.00.
"new clothes" means I made a great find at GoodWill.
"Vacation" means I will drive to my daughters for a few days.
But I am not alone. So many of us find ourselves in this boat.
All we can do --is the best we can.
May God watch over this flock.


----------



## Irish knitter (Mar 29, 2011)

I really "feel" for everybody on here....we were supposed to sell our house and move once my father in law passed on. Then my husband dropped the "bomb" that we had nothing. We are in the county at least a hour from any decent shopping areas as the big box stores will not come into small areas. The cars are old and falling apart. No bus service. LEELEE I am right there with you...I had to turn in recycling and pray we had enough gas money to see my grandson at christmas. I begged my daughter to let me come and live with her and I'll babysit/clean house as she has to go back to work and she said they did not have enough room (I know it was my son in law....he's weird)
AND HE CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY I WANT A DIVORCE.....!!!!


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Are there any of you out there that never really thought about what a "fixed" income really means? When I worked, I used to hear the expression "fixed" income a lot. I used to think that my income was fixed because I was salaried and made x number of dollars a month. It took retirement and setting up a budget to really get what a fixed income really is. When I worked, any overtime I worked was "extra" income and the bonus at the end of the year was "extra" income, plus I would get a merit raise every year so my income would go up. Now that I am retired and on social security and a pension I finally realize what "fixed" actually means. My pension is fixed at the same amount every month, every year for the rest of my life. Sometimes Social Security will go up a few dollars, but basically it is the same every month, every year for the rest of my life. When any company like Direct TV or Comcast try to raise what I am paying for their service, I call them immediately to get my cost back down. Where do they think that extra money for the increased amount on the bill is going to come from? My income does not increase and will be the same the rest of my life. I know there are a lot of you that are on fixed incomes, too. I just wonder how many were ignorant like me as to what that really meant.


I am 62 and plan to retire at 66. I have started buying things I won't want to spend money on in retirement. I have all "new" appliances. New windows, doors, etc. I also shop and stock up on TP, soap, laundry soap, dryer sheets, toothpaste etc. I have started marking every thing I open to see how much I use in a given time. I plan to have enough staples as mentioned above to last me 10 or more years into retirement. Don't know if that will work out or not. Also pay off my mortgage ASAP.

I'm making good money at present so I'm socking away staples in preparation for retirement.

Oh my I forgot my yarn stash. And I have so many patterns to use it all on. I hardly ever buy patterns.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Irish knitter said:


> I had no "clue" what a "fixed income" was until I lost my job. I gave money away freely to whom ever needed it; (even my customers who needed milk for their children) I would tell them "I have it; you need it".....NOW...it is another story! I am knitting out of my stash; cannot afford to drive my car; cannot afford a lot of things that I TOOK FOR GRANTED....this has really opened my eyes! I am on SS permanently because of medical injuries. I had no clue about meds costing so much!!! And when there are 5 weeks in a month!!!
> I have come to a rude awakening.....so if I am crabby or rude will you just pm me and let me know...please??!! Maybe I do not know how I sound as some days I get overwhelmed with just surviving.
> I had the idea that I was "set" for retirementas I had $ 200,000.00 set aside....guess what? My husband gambled it away on the stock market....all he had to do was divert everything into our "medical account" and withdraw it all!!!!


I am so sorry that your husband did that. Maybe we should start giving each other ideas on how we are saving money. Gasoline can be a huge expense. I try to combine as many errands into one trip as possible to save on gas. Electricity is my next big bill. I try to save on it where I can. I am on my electric company's budget plan where instead of having a big bill every two months and that is higher in the winter months, I get a bill every month for the same amount. They adjust that amount quarterly depending on usage. Years ago we had extra insulation added to our home and before I retired we had vinyl windows installed. I have gone to the money saver light bulbs in every fixture in our home, including our outside lights. I recycle everything that I can and am on the mini can rate with our waste disposal company. The mini can cannot be over 20 gal. I use coupons all the time and try not to buy anything we don't need. I purchase my groceries at Safeway and they have a good gasoline program. When I get gasoline at the Safeway stations I have saved as much as $1.00 per gallon. Their regular price without the discount is usually less than other stations in our area. Fortunately my husband and I are in pretty good health so we don't have a lot of medical bills. He only takes blood pressure and cholesterol medication and I don't take any medications at all. Sadly, because of the house payment, my husband says he will never retire. If he goes before me, I will lose the house. He no longer has life insurance, but there is a policy on me. To get him a new policy at his age of 71 is totally unaffordable for us. So, I just keep trying to find ways to save money. Hope to see some posts of ideas I haven't thought of. Every little bit helps.


----------



## Irish knitter (Mar 29, 2011)

You guys...THANK YOU for letting me vent. I know that there are people that are a lot worse off (homeless) but I am just not used to this and losing my job with no idea that it would happen! I had surgery; couldn't make it back in time and found out I have an unfixable illness and cannot go back to work.
I need to hear from more of you so I can "perk up" and be grateful!


----------



## Irish knitter (Mar 29, 2011)

We are on propane so we close all the doors and cover all the vents;keep the heat at 65. I only go out once every two weeks and make one trip for everything. Got the lightbulbs covered. I used to do the safeway gas thing until somone sued safeway so in CA they had to stop the discount.....oh some of these people....apparently somone went to safeway and did not have a card and would not sign up for it and sued safeway over it!!


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> I am so sorry that your husband did that. Maybe we should start giving each other ideas on how we are saving money. Gasoline can be a huge expense. I try to combine as many errands into one trip as possible to save on gas. Electricity is my next big bill. I try to save on it where I can. I am on my electric company's budget plan where instead of having a big bill every two months and that is higher in the winter months, I get a bill every month for the same amount. They adjust that amount quarterly depending on usage. Years ago we had extra insulation added to our home and before I retired we had vinyl windows installed. I have gone to the money saver light bulbs in every fixture in our home, including our outside lights. I recycle everything that I can and am on the mini can rate with our waste disposal company. The mini can cannot be over 20 gal. I use coupons all the time and try not to buy anything we don't need. I purchase my groceries at Safeway and they have a good gasoline program. When I get gasoline at the Safeway stations I have saved as much as $1.00 per gallon. Their regular price without the discount is usually less than other stations in our area. Fortunately my husband and I are in pretty good health so we don't have a lot of medical bills. He only takes blood pressure and cholesterol medication and I don't take any medications at all. Sadly, because of the house payment, my husband says he will never retire. If he goes before me, I will lose the house. He no longer has life insurance, but there is a policy on me. To get him a new policy at his age of 71 is totally unaffordable for us. So, I just keep trying to find ways to save money. Hope to see some posts of ideas I haven't thought of. Every little bit helps.


We pay a $0.5 deposit on bottles and cans in Maine. I found a place that will give me $0.6 per bottle/can. That's a 20% return on my money. LOL..


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Stay out of NYS. Taxes thru the roof. High costs. I keep thinking of moving out from time to time. I'd like to know why the government keeps robbing the SS fund.


Government is not robbing the SS fund, by law the money must be invested. US government bonds continue to be the best safe investment in the world.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html


----------



## Irish knitter (Mar 29, 2011)

Oh...you guys!!! I worked for RePlanet the recycling company with the machines....hey; put your little light water bottles through the machines and weigh the heavier ones. And....caps count! If they request you to take off the caps either bend them and get them in the bottle or bag them up and put them on top of your load. If you do not have the machines ask for a count if you have those "flimsy" little water bottles. They have to count 50. In CA you can do comingled cans and plastic. That is 50% CRV and 50% non CRV (#1) which would be your dishwasing soap or anything with a 1 in the tiny triangle. Check with your recycler because we also did comingle on #2 also ....that is the big water bottles 1/2 gal and more; and orange juice containers.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Government is not robbing the SS fund, by law the money must be invested. US government bonds continue to be the best safe investment in the world.
> 
> http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html


Oh, I thought they actually took money out of the fund. All the talk about it made me think it was a done deal.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Oh, I thought they actually took money out of the fund. All the talk about it made me think it was a done deal.


Yup, that is what certain people who would like to dismantle SS want people to think.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

WindingRoad said:


> We pay a $0.5 deposit on bottles and cans in Maine. I found a place that will give me $0.6 per bottle/can. That's a 20% return on my money. LOL..


50 cents? Maybe a wrong decimal place?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> 50 cents? Maybe a wrong decimal place?


Nice catch, Ute, that would get me off soda if I weren't already.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> 50 cents? Maybe a wrong decimal place?


50 cents what. 20% of 5 cents is 1 cent. 5 cents plus 1 cent is 6 cents.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> 50 cents what. 20% of 5 cents is 1 cent. 5 cents plus 1 cent is 6 cents.


No biggie .05 is hundredths.


----------



## chickkie (Oct 26, 2011)

I really don't understand the stockpiling of items before you retire. IF you save the money you will have it when you retire the same as you do now. I found it takes far less money to live on than we thought it would since we don't have to use the car every day.


----------



## babsbarb (Dec 23, 2012)

Stockpiling - things are probably cheaper now than they will be in 10 years. So, if you have enough TP and such for the next 10 years and replace as you use it, you would be saving $.

Make your own laundry detergent. Go online and find the recipes for it. It is VERY cheap to make and does a great job. Don't buy "instant" anything at the grocery store.
Don't go to the grocery store when you are hungry. You will purchase things you normally wouldn't if you go when you are hungry.
Hot water timer, grow a vegetable garden, purchase what you feel comfortable at the thrift stores,


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

chickkie said:


> I really don't understand the stockpiling of items before you retire. IF you save the money you will have it when you retire the same as you do now. I found it takes far less money to live on than we thought it would since we don't have to use the car every day.


I am not sure what you mean by items? 
The ol' stash talk? I am not sure that was meant as a retirement investment. It just comes in handy to have it bought. 
I would have spent good money on other things besides yarn if I were planning for retirement. 
Oh, what am I saying. I did make other plans besides yarn. It's just that if you have it, you might as well celebrate that you at least have that.


----------



## chickkie (Oct 26, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I am not sure what you mean by items?
> The ol' stash talk? I am not sure that was meant as a retirement investment. It just comes in handy to have it bought.
> I would have spent good money on other things besides yarn if I were planning for retirement.
> Oh, what am I saying. I did make other plans besides yarn. It's just that if you have it, you might as well celebrate that you at least have that.


gotta have yarn, that's stash.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

chickkie said:


> gotta have yarn, that's stash.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## blessedinMO (Mar 9, 2013)

Fixed income very quickly taught me the difference between 'I want' and 'I need'.


----------



## lneighbors3 (Oct 19, 2011)

This is the very reason we are retiring to Ecuador next year. Cost of living is about half of what it is in the US. We will both be on SS, will have some IRA and 401K money for back-up. Plus the climate means no heating or cooling bills.

Lynne


----------



## Mary Cardiff (Mar 18, 2012)

We in the uk get a small increase in pensions each april,I found after working with the elderly for over 20 years,Women living on there own cope better with there money, than couples,I think a lot of men exspect to live the same on a pension as when they were both working,


----------



## vannavanna (Oct 15, 2012)

Gosh so this is happening everyplace! I became a single parent with four children and worked my socks off to be able to buy a house. My children have flown, my house is ageing while the pension is static,
On the other hand friends in social housing have repairs to their property done for free as is their community tax and rent. Yes I am jealous and blame my foolishness in trying to make a better future for my children.


----------



## bunnee3742 (May 15, 2012)

Many retirees only have SS income in their retirement years plus whatever savings they could manage. Those who also have pensions are very lucky in this day and age. Pensions are another thing that people assume everybody has.


----------



## cydneyjo (Aug 5, 2011)

I married unwisely (twice) and did not divorce well, and have worked since I was 16 years old. Now, at 75, I am preparing to retire tomorrow, and will be on a fixed income made up of my Social Security and a small pension. I am fortunate that I do the kind of work that will permit me to pick up a couple of hours a month to supplement, and I worked until my mortgage was paid off. But things will be quite different, I'm realizing, once I am retired. My daughter, her husband and four children live in my house, and I have two other children, and all of them will take care of me if I need it, but I hate to depend on others, since I have always been the one depended on. So we'll see. But this topic is scaring me.


----------



## Hudson (Mar 3, 2011)

My husband has worked for himself for decades so there will be no retirement for us. We live on a fixed income: what he charges the company he works with! I can adjust our food expenses but increases in gasoline and utility prices make me mad! From where is that extra money supposed to come? And shopping for affordable care insurance has been a mess. Apparently we are going to spend $300 plus a month and not have help until our deductable of $12,800!!! I hope to NEVER be that sick!


----------



## chubs (Nov 5, 2011)

I am also on "fixed" income but I don't have to worry about being laid off from a job . I know what I have to have to pay out and my "needs" are few . I am so blessed to not have to go out and work and worry about losing my job.


----------



## ChrisGV (Apr 5, 2013)

I retire today and have been planning on this for 30 years. It will be interesting, but we do have 401k and IRA money. I worked for a financial company for 26 years and could see how it worked. We were lucky to have a great financial advisor who helped make this possible in a good way.....on the other hand, we have been using coupons for 43 years. And we save money many other ways. We've been doing it so long that it is second nature. I started doing a few craft sales last year....just 3 or 4, I have had several commissioned knitting requests this year and I have a small Etsy site since October with the encouragement of my daughter. I feel very fortunate. We'll see how it goes.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

vannavanna said:


> Gosh so this is happening everyplace! I became a single parent with four children and worked my socks off to be able to buy a house. My children have flown, my house is ageing while the pension is static,
> On the other hand friends in social housing have repairs to their property done for free as is their community tax and rent. Yes I am jealous and blame my foolishness in trying to make a better future for my children.


Could you sell your house and move into housing for the elderly? The elderly here pay rent on their apts even if they are subsidized. 30% of their income, I think. 
There is not enough of the housing, and so many homeowners have a sentimental attachment to their homes. 
Could you rent out a couple of bedrooms?


----------



## Terry Tice (Feb 12, 2012)

Don't even get me started on what divorce can do to pension and 401K money and having to start all over again with a 30 year mortgage at age 60.

But, as always, try to stay positive and count my blessings (which are many).


----------



## #1Patsy (Feb 6, 2011)

Besides fixed income there are the scammers out there. Looking for extra cash I put on Craig's list something for sale all I got was folks that wanted to barter their junk. But biggest of all was the one that sent me $2250 more then I asked. If I'd cashed the check and sent that amount by money gram to his trucker, the check would have bounced in less then ten days and I would have owed the money back to bank plus my asked for 150. I had called sheriff, to see what I should do. that dud threatened me to have FBI at my door because I did not cash his check, instead I returned it to him voided. Be ware be safe


----------



## eneurian (May 4, 2011)

Scruffy's Mum said:


> And when you think, most people get paid either every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, with 52 weeks in a year there are actually 13 x 4 week (months) - does that make sense? Soc Sec is only 12 times a year. I know what I'm trying to say - but not sure I said it very well.


I know exactly what you are saying. and here's another thought, any of us dependent on medication our prescriptions are 'sold' at 30 count per month. this means we are at least a week short of meds every year.


----------



## Jennyp1 (Nov 19, 2012)

I am due to retire on 31st July next year. Looking at with some trepidation. Trying to make sure have large stash, wool and fabrics because I know funds will be limited once stop working. Lucky that mortgage is paid off, but still going to have to be frugal and think from 1 August, maybe menu planning will come into,force. Husband is going to work until he feels ready to stop, but he is not getting any younger.


----------



## Abi_marsden (Aug 5, 2012)

I know most of these messages are from USA but I thought I'd saymy bit to.2 years ago if not more now I was in a very bad accident at work.i became very disableld and ofcourse could not work.so I've had to live on the social .fixed income and it's a very hard struggle every single month.the money dosent change but things around me do,so I've had to give up so much that I used to love.i can't afford the food I used to eat,can't go out as much certainly can't use decent yarn and as for clothes that's gone straight out the window and I now get them for gifts.but if I wasn't in great pain and if I wasn't disableld and if our ruby was was still here would I b
E happy yes I would.ive got a wonderful family a amazing hubby and good friends.i can also spend time smelling the roses.ofcourse do all my crafts I love.so for all the people that moan about money there are some things that we still have.happy new year.


----------



## Vermont Grammy (Jan 5, 2012)

you said it very well. Most people receive 26 paychecks per year. SS recipients receive 12 paychecks per year or the equivalent of 24 paychecks. We lose a couple of weeks of pay each year. I first realized this when I was paying off a car and having 1/2 of the payment deducted from my paycheck every two weeks. Surprise! My car was paid off a couple of months before I expected the payoff.
Judy in Vermont


----------



## Grammiebecky (Sep 16, 2013)

Oh Evie, I am with you; our stories are so similar. I retired in July 2013 and am well aware of living on a fixed income. I do not have a pension but "later" in life put money into a 401K. I only wish I had done that sooner and put more in. 

Did Direct TV or Dish actually keep your rates the same after you called them? Most companies don't care about the fact that we are on fixed incomes. 

I used to work with our older population, of which retirement makes me one too; I guess. I try to support our older generation whenever I can because if we don't support them, no one else will. With the changes in health care costs and a decline in health, it makes me realize that we don't take care of our elders the way we should. I get irritated when I see young people "sponging" off of society when they could be working. And yet, they know how to use the system to the fullest.

Thank you for letting me vent and I hear yah!


----------



## RobbiD (Nov 13, 2012)

Evie RM said:


> Are there any of you out there that never really thought about what a "fixed" income really means? When I worked, I used to hear the expression "fixed" income a lot. I used to think that my income was fixed because I was salaried and made x number of dollars a month. It took retirement and setting up a budget to really get what a fixed income really is. When I worked, any overtime I worked was "extra" income and the bonus at the end of the year was "extra" income, plus I would get a merit raise every year so my income would go up. Now that I am retired and on social security and a pension I finally realize what "fixed" actually means. My pension is fixed at the same amount every month, every year for the rest of my life. Sometimes Social Security will go up a few dollars, but basically it is the same every month, every year for the rest of my life. When any company like Direct TV or Comcast try to raise what I am paying for their service, I call them immediately to get my cost back down. Where do they think that extra money for the increased amount on the bill is going to come from? My income does not increase and will be the same the rest of my life. I know there are a lot of you that are on fixed incomes, too. I just wonder how many were ignorant like me as to what that really meant.


We are on a really fixed income. SS Disability! With the future prospect of it becoming even smaller come age 65! Odd jobs, etc., are not an option...so we just pinch those pennies tighter and tighter every month. "Golden years" my foot!


----------



## gigi 722 (Oct 25, 2011)

Oh yes, fixed incomes are a challenge. I found an easy job on line that pays for my newspaper and a small stipend per month. It is a blessing.


----------



## Kellanrevere (Nov 25, 2011)

lneighbors3 said:


> This is the very reason we are retiring to Ecuador next year. Cost of living is about half of what it is in the US. We will both be on SS, will have some IRA and 401K money for back-up. Plus the climate means no heating or cooling bills.
> 
> Lynne


I would LOVE to expat. Have done a lot of research on it. Don't know if I will ever get hubby to go along , though. Odd thing is , he loves to travel !


----------



## Emma544 (Jul 22, 2013)

Please understand that it is not only retired people on a fixed income. I work in education and wish I had a fixed income. We have had a pay freeze for 5 years. Now we have to pay for our insurance and have a $6000.00 deducticle, in order to get a better rate! I a actually taking home LESS money than I did 10 years ago. 

Many days I ask myself why I continue to work in education. LESS money, everyone complains about what we do, MORE standards to be met, LESS respect from the community. Fortunately I love my job and working with students.

I am looking forward to retirement when a fixed income means my pay will be stable instead of going the other way.

Just to give another side of this topic.


----------



## Pippen (Jan 30, 2013)

I have read all the posts and we are 5 years from retirement, this is scary!! :shock:


----------



## flhusker (Feb 17, 2011)

Hubby and I also are retired and on a fixed income. We both have our SS. What worries the heck out of me is if something happens to him and I'm left alone I can't make it on just my SS.


----------



## Kellanrevere (Nov 25, 2011)

Abi_marsden said:


> I know most of these messages are from USA but I thought I'd saymy bit to.2 years ago if not more now I was in a very bad accident at work.i became very disableld and ofcourse could not work.so I've had to live on the social .fixed income and it's a very hard struggle every single month.the money dosent change but things around me do,so I've had to give up so much that I used to love.i can't afford the food I used to eat,can't go out as much certainly can't use decent yarn and as for clothes that's gone straight out the window and I now get them for gifts.but if I wasn't in great pain and if I wasn't disableld and if our ruby was was still here would I b
> E happy yes I would.ive got a wonderful family a amazing hubby and good friends.i can also spend time smelling the roses.ofcourse do all my crafts I love.so for all the people that moan about money there are some things that we still have.happy new year.


I can't say as money is a huge issue with us yet but our lives did change when I had to give up working 5 years ago due to health. I do now get disability but suffer many of the same losses as you, I don't eat what I used to (can't stand long enough to cook) don't go out shopping, why bother to buy clothes when I am home all day? But like you, I can find joy in other things. I try to look for the bright side .

Kelly


----------



## Grandma M (Nov 18, 2011)

Yes I know what fixed income is. I'm into it 2 yrs now and
what my income decrease as everything around me increases. Food, gas, yarn (learned to shop on line for cheaper yarn).
There are things I can still cut out of my lifestyle. I fortunately have good health care from where I used to work. I pay more for it but it's far better than Obama care
and cheaper too.


----------



## kiwifrau (Jan 2, 2013)

chickkie said:


> I really don't understand the stockpiling of items before you retire. IF you save the money you will have it when you retire the same as you do now. I found it takes far less money to live on than we thought it would since we don't have to use the car every day.


I also stock piled many items before my husband passed and still do today but on a smaller scale.

Budgeting can be fun, honestly, well at least for me but I've always been a penny pincher, lol.

Why did I buy and stock pile, look at it this way, I bought 10 large containers of "Tide" laundry detergent years ago when it was "on sale", saving big bucks at that time. Always marked the lids with the date of purchase, date opened and well, no need to date when it was finished. lol! This way, the oldest box was used 1st & so on. 
This gave me an estimate of how long a box lasted.

There is no way that I've lost money shopping this way I've actually gained. Our interest rates in Ontario, Canada are lousy for one thing, even if you have "X" # of dollars the highest I've seen is 1.35% in a savings a/c.

My last box of "Tide", still not opened has May 2003 on the top, that's the date I purchased it.
When I looked at restocking some of these items again I'm amazed, should say "flabbergasted" at the price increases.
Guess what!
Have now switched to making my own Laundry Detergent, also all my cleaning products are made with baking soda, white vinegar etc., etc. Honestly I have saved $100's and best yet, they clean........... No more chemical smells.

If you use fabric softener, buy an inexpensive bottle of softener, use an old facecloth dab it onto the face cloth and put that into the dryer. Don't wash the cloth till after several uses. No more static and clothes smell just as nice.
Of course those in warmer climates can hang theirs outdoors.


----------



## Mama34 (Jul 1, 2013)

Unfortunately I understand too well fixed income. I worked approximately 50 years. My husband worked and he any our youngest son had a business together. My husband handed all the sales and fundamental things necessary in a business. He was planning to teach our son all this but unfortunately had a massive cerebral hemorrhage (rupted aneurysm on the brain). He was in ICU for 2 months and then rehab for another month. He had extensive brain damage from the hemorrhage and other than being able to walk and feed himself he was helpless. Our youngest son stayed home and took care of him while I worked. Now he is gone and our oldest son passed away 5 years later. Now my youngest son and I live together and I don't know what I would do if he were not here. He is not disabled with diabetic neuropathy and arthritis so we have to live on my ss and a small pension. We have just been hanging on by our fingernails to stay afloat. It makes me feel that the govenment keeps raising taxes and foolishly spend money and forgets about the people, expecially the older citizens. Sorry I sent such a long post but I feel better after venting a little. Have a wonderful day.


----------



## kiwifrau (Jan 2, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> The only resource I can see is banding together to save and increase spending money.


Starting this when I return from Florida end of Jan.

This is my 1st vacation in over 15 years. Bought an airline ticket several months ago, saved there and will be saving on accommodation as I've been invited to stay with friends.
Of course I will be treating them to dinners and gasoline for driving me around etc.


----------



## Hilda (Apr 23, 2011)

The main thing to do for retirement is PREPARE! Tighten the belt several years prior and pay off all the bills including the mortage and make repairs to the home. I knew when I wanted to retire and had everything ready including a new car. I have SS and a small pension and will have to start drawing from my 401k this next year. I need less money to live on so have been able to save some plus make some long wanted changes to my home. If one can't manage money when working then retirement will be no different.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Emma544 said:


> Please understand that it is not only retired people on a fixed income. I work in education and wish I had a fixed income. We have had a pay freeze for 5 years. Now we have to pay for our insurance and have a $6000.00 deducticle, in order to get a better rate! I a actually taking home LESS money than I did 10 years ago.
> 
> Many days I ask myself why I continue to work in education. LESS money, everyone complains about what we do, MORE standards to be met, LESS respect from the community. Fortunately I love my job and working with students.
> 
> ...


You make a great point, data shows us that incomes that are stagnant are really worth less than they were a few years ago. 
I know as a former state worker when we would go for a few years without a raise we would be behind the 8 ball, so to speak, and then be told by the state's negotiatiing team that the public would be POed if we got too large a raise; of course, they were right. The public always thinks that the people who do those jobs that nobody else wants to do are overpaid.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

kiwifrau said:


> Starting this when I return from Florida end of Jan.
> 
> This is my 1st vacation in over 15 years. Bought an airline ticket several months ago, saved there and will be saving on accommodation as I've been invited to stay with friends.
> Of course I will be treating them to dinners and gasoline for driving me around etc.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## DonnieK (Nov 23, 2011)

"Fixed income" Bah Humbug


----------



## domesticgod (Apr 6, 2011)

You left out "limited" to go along with the fixed. It I can't find a job to supplement the SS, I'll probably have to file Chapter 13 or just outright declare bankruptcy.


----------



## Bunbun (Feb 13, 2013)

I just got my SS notice of my raise for '14. a whopping $4. Great, now I can buy an extra pound of hamburger!!!
Just read your AAA and AARP magazines, they don't have a clue what "fixed income" means as they tout all those Wonderful travel pkgs. Certainly no member of our Govn't has any idea of what the average person has to cope with. If they had to live on our salaries, pensions, whatever, they couldn't do it>


----------



## DonnieK (Nov 23, 2011)

God promised to take care of us and meet our needs. He did not promise we could all drive a Rolls Royce and wear expensive watches and diamonds. 
My needs are sufficient. I don't think of it as Fixed Income anymore. I think of it as God granting me to live long enough to collect that fixed income. It is not fun to have to rob peter sometimes to pay paul, but at least I have that option!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Mama34 said:


> Unfortunately I understand too well fixed income. I worked approximately 50 years. My husband worked and he any our youngest son had a business together. My husband handed all the sales and fundamental things necessary in a business. He was planning to teach our son all this but unfortunately had a massive cerebral hemorrhage (rupted aneurysm on the brain). He was in ICU for 2 months and then rehab for another month. He had extensive brain damage from the hemorrhage and other than being able to walk and feed himself he was helpless. Our youngest son stayed home and took care of him while I worked. Now he is gone and our oldest son passed away 5 years later. Now my youngest son and I live together and I don't know what I would do if he were not here. He is not disabled with diabetic neuropathy and arthritis so we have to live on my ss and a small pension. We have just been hanging on by our fingernails to stay afloat. It makes me feel that the govenment keeps raising taxes and foolishly spend money and forgets about the people, expecially the older citizens. Sorry I sent such a long post but I feel better after venting a little. Have a wonderful day.


If your son is disabled why is he not collecting a SS check as well? I would think that he would qualify. 
I know I will get blasted again, but, if you are on SS and a small pension how have your taxes gone up? The only federal increase has been for people making more than 200K as a single. 
If you are talking local property taxes, PLEASE, check into the abatements for those who are older. That is a hefty gift for folks who own their own homes. 
Sorry for all your troubles.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Hilda said:


> The main thing to do for retirement is PREPARE! Tighten the belt several years prior and pay off all the bills including the mortage and make repairs to the home. I knew when I wanted to retire and had everything ready including a new car. I have SS and a small pension and will have to start drawing from my 401k this next year. I need less money to live on so have been able to save some plus make some long wanted changes to my home. If one can't manage money when working then retirement will be no different.


Exactly, in my part of the world we call it acting like an adult.


----------



## Jennyp1 (Nov 19, 2012)

I am lucky that because I have long term illnesses that will never change I do not have to pay for medication, but I do for dental care, same paid as joe public. Reminds me due dental check up


----------



## clickerMLL (Aug 14, 2013)

When I had the opportunity to take "early retirement" I got out two years of check registers and figured out my actual spending, since what you think you spend and what you actually spend are two different things! Then I had my "gotta get" number and found I could retire.

It's not always easy, of course.

And to all of the knitters, a suggestion: When you have a bunch of extra yarn sitting around, such as extra skeins or small balls or "orphan" yarn somebody has given you that you don't want, please donate it to a local senior center! There are always people who love to knit/crochet/whatever who can't afford yarn and who will turn your leftovers into items to use, to sell, or to donate to the needy! Our local senior center members make wonderful hats, scarves, and mittens for the local school children in need, plus great potholders and other items for the center's annual craft fair.


----------



## Lori Putz (Jul 13, 2011)

I am retired and now my DH will this year. We are on teacher pension in Wisconsin which is one of the best in the US, but it will be less than our current income BUT, we worked hard to get our sons raised, educated, and independent. We lowered our debt to almost nothing, sold our VERY large house and have decided to rent for the foreseeable future AND move closer to our families and friends to save on gas. 
My husband is talented in so many ways, so he will be doing a number of small but satisfying jobs and I don't mind sub teaching where ever we live.

I shop with coupons, watch sales, and plan waaaaay ahead for Christmas so I can buy year round to afford the purchases. It is amazing when you are on a few days road trip and you run into a cute shop with a shirt that is perfect for an adult son and you tuck it away for six months later. In December, it's so much easier. 

Both of my sons have dropped their cable and gone with Netflixs. They can still watch network tv, but they hook up their computer and CNN does live feed for the news. The are already looking at the savings and they make good money.


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

I am 70 and still work. My husband died 3 years ago and I still have a mortgage. I will work as long as I can so as not to have to move out of state


----------



## kiwifrau (Jan 2, 2013)

One more post, don't mean to hog this subject, but also like to vent and possibly help someone else out there.

My husband & I have always saved, travelled the World in our younger days, no regrets doing that have a Million & 1 memories. 
My husband passed July of this year, I've sold the large house, bought a townhouse in a retirement/lifestyle community, live an hour & 1/2 closer to our daughter. This TH is 24 years old, the previous owners put new windows in, new furnace, A/C, water softener and seems I bought it for a "steal" as one of my new neighbors told me, lol.
Yes I sold high & bought low.
New hardwood going in on the main floor, new kitchen & appliances also.
Just bought new Miele Washer & Dryer, saved $400 there plus a free 5 year extended warranty. Also their Dishwasher, same deal saved $200 etc.

Then went to Sears to look at a double oven range. Loved it, told the salesman I'll wait till it comes on sale as I'm in no hurry to buy. Suddenly the price was reduced by $400. Bought that, lol. All I need is a new fridge.
Yes I'll be giving a lot "$'s" out, but they are all energy efficient and should last me for decades - if I'm around that long. Had my Miele appliances in the old house and these are still all going strong and that after 19 years.
New car in March and then back to penny pinching.


----------



## kiwifrau (Jan 2, 2013)

DonnieK said:


> "Fixed income" Bah Humbug


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

My thoughts exactly.


----------



## BobbieO (May 23, 2012)

Again, everything you've said is true.--At 82 I am living on less than $1,000.00 a month.SS. Worked 61 years. Raised two daughters alone. We were always able to have what we needed and some extras. In 2007 I developed a problem with my heart. Had never ask for help of any kind. Now, I have a Lone Star Card. ( Food Stamps). Never thought this would happen. My family helps with other things I need. I thank God I was able to see them through education to put them in the position to help. And somewhere, God in his wisdom, saw fit to have them all be loving and caring adults. 
thanks for letting me tell my stories.
Bobbie O


----------



## headlemk (Feb 16, 2011)

We moved to Mexico for a few years in order to live more inexpensively on our SS. We will return to the US when our pensions kick in at 71.


----------



## Mama34 (Jul 1, 2013)

My son is trying to get disability now. We are waiting for a hearing. Getting disability is no "walk in the park". They turned my husband down for disability telling him that as a minister he would be able to work within a year. The man could not dress himself, could not bathe himself and couldn't remember what he had for lunch or we were going to eat lunch (this was just an hour or two after eating lunch). We are making ends meet at the present time but what will he do when I am gone if they do not grant him disability. We are not people who are looking for a "hand-out" but he does need an income for utilities and his needs when I am gone. Our house is paid for so he will have a place to live but he also needs an income. He helps in the Food Pantry here, volunteered at first but then they put him on payroll but that is lon 2 1/2 hours 2 days a week.


----------



## Johnna (Mar 27, 2011)

Montana Gramma said:


> We will likely not be able to stay in our area either, down the road. This is a typical tourist area , very expensive and real estate taxes have gone through the roof. We have saved, but cost index rises faster than interest, that in it self is a joke any more. I do all kinds of odd jobs on my days off,mostly for fun and travel $ but will not be doing that forever. No need to worry about buying supplies tho' my stash of all is a forever past my life stash! At least once a month we look at one another and say let's just sell it all. Except the stash!! And the 5 welders and the helicopter!! Priorities change to be sure, I certainly do not need a 9 shelf library of pattern books. Time to cull again. Does anyone know of a quilting site similar to this? 40 years of collecting or gifts.


Try The Quiting Board.com (my 12th etter does not work!) for a forum ike this one.
Johnna


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Mama34 said:


> My son is trying to get disability now. We are waiting for a hearing. Getting disability is no "walk in the park". They turned my husband down for disability telling him that as a minister he would be able to work within a year. The man could not dress himself, could not bathe himself and couldn't remember what he had for lunch or we were going to eat lunch (this was just an hour or two after eating lunch). We are making ends meet at the present time but what will he do when I am gone if they do not grant him disability. We are not people who are looking for a "hand-out" but he does need an income for utilities and his needs when I am gone. Our house is paid for so he will have a place to live but he also needs an income. He helps in the Food Pantry here, volunteered at first but then they put him on payroll but that is lon 2 1/2 hours 2 days a week.


Most people get turned down the during the first application process, and then approved. I am not sure why. Who can understand those things?
And yes, of course he needs an income. He shouldn't have to feel dependent on you. That would do terrible things to his ego. 
It is good that he can pick up a bit of pin money through his work at the food pantry. 
I don't know about where you live, but, here in Mass there is money through Transitional Assistance for living expenses while a person is waiting to be approved for SS Disability. You might want to have him check it out. 
Here in Mass it is something like $300. a month. Not much, but, would pay for the groceries. Plus, have him apply for food stamps as someone who is staying in your home if he fixes his own meals and doesn't mix his food with yours he is entitled to something like $150./month. Again, I am using Mass amounts. 
Anything is a help, right?


----------



## lneighbors3 (Oct 19, 2011)

Kellanrevere said:


> I would LOVE to expat. Have done a lot of research on it. Don't know if I will ever get hubby to go along , though. Odd thing is , he loves to travel !


I thought the same thing about my husband, but he is more excited about going than I.

Lynne


----------



## Lori Putz (Jul 13, 2011)

Mama34 said:


> My son is trying to get disability now. We are waiting for a hearing. Getting disability is no "walk in the park". They turned my husband down for disability telling him that as a minister he would be able to work within a year. The man could not dress himself, could not bathe himself and couldn't remember what he had for lunch or we were going to eat lunch (this was just an hour or two after eating lunch). We are making ends meet at the present time but what will he do when I am gone if they do not grant him disability. We are not people who are looking for a "hand-out" but he does need an income for utilities and his needs when I am gone. Our house is paid for so he will have a place to live but he also needs an income. He helps in the Food Pantry here, volunteered at first but then they put him on payroll but that is lon 2 1/2 hours 2 days a week.


Keep pushing on his disability. A dear friend's wife was a lawyer and suffered an aneurysm in the brain. They were able to get it out but she had to relearn to read and function. The disability board told them that she could still be a lawyer's assistant. My friend didn't give up as he knew he was right. A good lawyer in this area was able to get them disability and help her to begin the process of relearning as much as possible.


----------



## llamagenny (Feb 26, 2013)

Too much month at the end of the money is what fixed income means to me!


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

In my area the small thrift shops (not Goodwill) will give volunteers large discounts and sometimes give you the item for free. When I was able, it was a great way to get what I needed and also feel productive. One local store has Brown Bag sales twice a year. You cram all you can into a large brown grocery bag for $7.00. 

My elderly neighbor died 2 weeks ago. The executor gave away most of his possessions. I was given the opportunity to take whatever I wanted, and I chose to go through my neighbor's books. 

I came home with books that have a secondary market value of $446.00. One of the books is worth $200.00. At some point I may sell these books.

One recent success was a cookie jar and matching salt and pepper shakers that I paid $1.99 for at Goodwill. I sold them for $50.00.

Tax free extra money!


----------



## chickkie (Oct 26, 2011)

misssusan644 said:


> In my area the small thrift shops (not Goodwill) will give volunteers large discounts and sometimes give you the item for free. When I was able, it was a great way to get what I needed and also feel productive. One local store has Brown Bag sales twice a year. You cram all you can into a large brown grocery bag for $7.00.
> 
> My elderly neighbor died 2 weeks ago. The executor gave away most of his possessions. I was given the opportunity to take whatever I wanted, and I chose to go through my neighbor's books.
> 
> ...


Just be careful where you sell those items as some places will report your sales.


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

I use a local consignment shop. Cash only, no paperwork.
.


----------



## Jean Keith (Feb 17, 2011)

I know in spades what a fixed income is. I've been robbing Peter to pay Paul all my adult life....raising 3 children alone wasn't a walk in the park. Social security, thank God, most of us have (that we paid for through the years of employment) but it is a challenge to make it. Living on a shoe string isn't easy but it is doable, by crackie!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

misssusan644 said:


> In my area the small thrift shops (not Goodwill) will give volunteers large discounts and sometimes give you the item for free. When I was able, it was a great way to get what I needed and also feel productive. One local store has Brown Bag sales twice a year. You cram all you can into a large brown grocery bag for $7.00.
> 
> My elderly neighbor died 2 weeks ago. The executor gave away most of his possessions. I was given the opportunity to take whatever I wanted, and I chose to go through my neighbor's books.
> 
> ...


Make sure that you stay under the reportable income limits, just sayin'.


----------



## ultrahiggs (Jun 4, 2012)

Evie RM said:


> Are there any of you out there that never really thought about what a "fixed" income really means? When I worked, I used to hear the expression "fixed" income a lot. I used to think that my income was fixed because I was salaried and made x number of dollars a month. It took retirement and setting up a budget to really get what a fixed income really is. When I worked, any overtime I worked was "extra" income and the bonus at the end of the year was "extra" income, plus I would get a merit raise every year so my income would go up. Now that I am retired and on social security and a pension I finally realize what "fixed" actually means. My pension is fixed at the same amount every month, every year for the rest of my life. Sometimes Social Security will go up a few dollars, but basically it is the same every month, every year for the rest of my life. When any company like Direct TV or Comcast try to raise what I am paying for their service, I call them immediately to get my cost back down. Where do they think that extra money for the increased amount on the bill is going to come from? My income does not increase and will be the same the rest of my life. I know there are a lot of you that are on fixed incomes, too. I just wonder how many were ignorant like me as to what that really meant.


I dont know what its like in the US, but from what you say is that your pension doesnt go up with the cost of living, is that right ? here in the UK pensioners get an annual increase each year -- not a lot but it does go up, but its not too great here either


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

misssusan644 said:


> I use a local consignment shop. Cash only, no paperwork.
> .


That consignment shop has to record who they got the product from and what their expense of payment was for each sale.


----------



## Lori Putz (Jul 13, 2011)

I also do a lot of consignment selling and buying. The joke in my family is that if it's new, it's because someone donanted them that way; I sold their clothes as they outgrew them and used the money to buy what we needed. I am not ashamed, just proud of what I could do with a limited amount. I NEVER shop groceries without my coupons and I plan meals carefully around the weekly flyers to make a set amount work. I buy in bulk when it's profitable and make leftovers work. Then when we do want a special item or event I can make it work. I know we have more than some and a lot less than others, but we are happy, healthy, have food on the table, friends that we share quality time with and hobbies that keep us busy and happy. What we can't give to the church, we offer in volunteering. My husband donates his playing as the organist and I do the communion set up and make the breads each month. 
I am rambling, but I recently heard my son say, "My mom can take crap and make it special. If we really needed it, she found a way to make it happen." 
Yes, I am financially challenged, but blessed by God with gifts there is no price on.


----------



## Beila Charna (Apr 28, 2012)

Scruffy's Mum said:


> And when you think, most people get paid either every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, with 52 weeks in a year there are actually 13 x 4 week (months) - does that make sense? Soc Sec is only 12 times a year. I know what I'm trying to say - but not sure I said it very well.


What you need to do is consider your YEARLY income. Whether you are paid weekly (x52), biweekly (x26), semi monthly (x24), or monthly (x12), your annual income is the total you will have. Budget accordingly.


----------



## sam0767 (Jun 20, 2012)

I turned 65 in October and no possible way I can survive on what ss would pay me a month!! I will have to continue working till I drop to servive. It sucks. I just want to be home and live a quiet life and spend more time with grandkids. Even if I wait and retird in 5 years it would be badically what I make in2 weeks at my job. I wasa stay at home mom when my kids were growing up. But I did bring in money at home doing day care for neighbors . That wad all pretty much cash paid. So I didnt put in much to ss.


----------



## ultrahiggs (Jun 4, 2012)

Tell me, coming from the UK, what is 401k everybody is talking about


----------



## kiwifrau (Jan 2, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Most people get turned down the during the first application process, and then approved. I am not sure why. Who can understand those things?
> And yes, of course he needs an income. He shouldn't have to feel dependent on you. That would do terrible things to his ego.
> It is good that he can pick up a bit of pin money through his work at the food pantry.
> I don't know about where you live, but, here in Mass there is money through Transitional Assistance for living expenses while a person is waiting to be approved for SS Disability. You might want to have him check it out.
> ...


Gosh you are a bundle of knowledge, love you for it. I'm in Canada, don't need assistant from anyone, but who knows what may happen down the road.
When I read your comments & suggestions, wish you could tell "Everyone" out there, not just we on KP. 
I understand what its like when people are going through changes in their life/lifestyles, for me its "where or whom do I ask for help or info". I'm a person who will ask & ask again & again to I know what to do and where to go. Will even act the "poor little old lady part, lol". 
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and I do hope "Mama34 " takes your advice and reapplies for her husbands disability they need the help now.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Beila Charna said:


> What you need to do is consider your YEARLY income. Whether you are paid weekly (x52), biweekly (x26), semi monthly (x24), or monthly (x12), your annual income is the total you will have. Budget accordingly.


Thanks for finding a good way to explain that. I KNEW it didn't matter how the money comes, couldn't think of a "nice" way to phrase it.


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

Chikkie, you are not in the U.S, correct?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

kiwifrau said:


> Gosh you are a bundle of knowledge, love you for it. I'm in Canada, don't need assistant from anyone, but who knows what may happen down the road.
> When I read your comments & suggestions, wish you could tell "Everyone" out there, not just we on KP.
> I understand what its like when people are going through changes in their life/lifestyles, for me its "where or whom do I ask for help or info". I'm a person who will ask & ask again & again to I know what to do and where to go. Will even act the "poor little old lady part, lol".
> Thank you for sharing your knowledge and I do hope "Mama34 " takes your advice and reapplies for her husbands disability they need the help now.


Thanks for the acknowledgement. 
I am gruff and direct, I know that. I do have many outlets for imparting knowledge. I was, in another lifetime, union active and had the opportunity to pick up all kinds of good info. 
I also know when to keep my big mouth shut and soak up good information. 
Now, if you just get the chance to pass some along...


----------



## LilgirlCA (Jan 22, 2011)

I've always thought we should be saying 'limited' income instead of 'fixed'


----------



## kiwifrau (Jan 2, 2013)

One last comment!! 

To save money regarding your TV, Phone, Internet. All you need to do is phone (Bell in my case), tell them you are going to move your phone, TV, Internet to a competitor. You will be transferred to a "loyalty assistant" and magically they (Bell) will offer you a HUGE savings bundle. 
I did this. 

From Nearly $200 a month for all services down to just below $100. That's a tremendous saving for me.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

kiwifrau said:


> One last comment!!
> 
> To save money regarding your TV, Phone, Internet. All you need to do is phone (Bell in my case), tell them you are going to move your phone, TV, Internet to a competitor. You will be transferred to a "loyalty assistant" and magically they (Bell) will offer you a HUGE savings bundle.
> I did this.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## cinjean48 (Sep 16, 2013)

I live in Fl and am medically disabled. I receive ss disability and was also getting food stamps to help out My SS was increased by $14 last month and guess what? Right, they discontinued my food stamps because I make to much money. Where in the world do they think $925 is to much money. I bet they don't have to try and live on that.


----------



## czechmate (Jun 17, 2011)

I was laid off and got hardly nothing and learned real fast how to get by,now I have retired and get by ok some thing you just learn and doing with out what you think you gotta have is a fairy tale.happy with what I have abd loving my retirement.


----------



## Abi_marsden (Aug 5, 2012)

In the uk getting diserbilty money is a awful nightmare as well,I got turned down twice before I got it.we have a thing hear called atos they do more harm than good.my hubby enquirerd why I didn't get any money and they told him I could lift my right hand there for I could work.the forms are a nightmare as well there's about 100 questions and I'd say less than half realy need answering.they just try to con you out.i feel so sorry for anyone that is old and confused or just anyone that is confused.i wouldn't be able to do it if hubby hadn't helped me.infact he's brillent at forms and does all my forms now and is my carer.


----------



## julie windham (Feb 21, 2011)

BobbieO, that is what I have to call a success story.


----------



## Noreen (Mar 30, 2011)

Hubby & I are also on a fixed income. I had to learn to budget entirely different to when we both worked, because now we only get paid once a month, instead of every two weeks. The hard part with Canadian Pension is they deposit it the 3rd last working day of the month so it is a different day every month, then hubby's omer's pension is deposited the 1st of every month, so I started paying all the bills on the 2nd of every month.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

cinjean48 said:


> I live in Fl and am medically disabled. I receive ss disability and was also getting food stamps to help out My SS was increased by $14 last month and guess what? Right, they discontinued my food stamps because I make to much money. Where in the world do they think $925 is to much money. I bet they don't have to try and live on that.


You might want to contact your US Representative and let that person know that you are unhappy with the cutbacks to the SNAP program. There was just a HUGE amount cut out of the appropriations. It has hurt many people.

AND I just remembered this program for those in need, it was intially posted by MaidInBedlam ...

http://www.fns.usda.gov/csfp/commodity-supplemental-food-program-csfp


----------



## Barbeevw (Dec 10, 2012)

Always love it when someone from WA state shows up on this board! I'm also a retiree on Social Security and a new widow.
I'm in Everett. Where are you?


----------



## Tietatissa (Dec 12, 2013)

I too am on fixed income. I dumped cable 2 years ago and got a ROKU box for around $90 (at the time, cheaper now). Just had to keep internet connection. Works perfect! If you want to keep just your local channels call your provider and they will fix you up a plan. My sons said I was cheap, so they pay the cable now and I still have the use of my ROKU AND I have some money to buy more yarn!!


----------



## cinjean48 (Sep 16, 2013)

I have spent hours on the phone and on line trying to get something done and if I had been able to strangle tem through the phone lines I would have. My only saving grace has been that my house and car are paid for and I knew another couple in the same situation so I now have housemates and that sure does help with expenses. A big difference from living alone but it does have many benefits.


----------



## Scruffy's Mum (Feb 20, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Most people get turned down the during the first application process, and then approved. I am not sure why. Who can understand those things?
> And yes, of course he needs an income. He shouldn't have to feel dependent on you. That would do terrible things to his ego.
> It is good that he can pick up a bit of pin money through his work at the food pantry.
> I don't know about where you live, but, here in Mass there is money through Transitional Assistance for living expenses while a person is waiting to be approved for SS Disability. You might want to have him check it out.
> ...


I think the Disability people feel they have to "go through the motions" of turning people down. So many people getting it who really aren't eligible. Would definitely keep on trying. Good Luck.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Scruffy's Mum said:


> I think the Disability people feel they have to "go through the motions" of turning people down. So many people getting it who really aren't eligible. Would definitely keep on trying. Good Luck.


Still, you have to wonder how people are supposed to survive while waiting.


----------



## cinjean48 (Sep 16, 2013)

One person I spoke to at the disability office said that it has more to do with how the doctor words your case. Lucky for me I got mine first time out. guess the doc knew what he was doing or my case worker was in a good mood that day. I don't know what I would have done if I had not received it because there is no way I will ever be able to work again. I was looking forward to retiring but not this way. I am pretty much home bound


----------



## eahite (Aug 26, 2013)

Oh my dears...I hear all of you. This year has been tough in so many ways, financially, health wise and pride wise as well. Perhaps at retirement age one isn't supposed to hang on to their pride. I just broke a front tooth, have no dental insurance (can,t afford it) and was very upfront with the dentist about my situation. I will pay for everything a bit at a time every month until paid off. Didn't beg or plead, they were kind and understanding but my pride took a beating any way. I am no "Downton Abbey" dowager but do believe in dignity. Ah well, the choice between dignity and a gaping black hole in the front of my mouth wasn't as difficult to make as I thought it would be.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

eahite said:


> Oh my dears...I hear all of you. This year has been tough in so many ways, financially, health wise and pride wise as well. Perhaps at retirement age one isn't supposed to hang on to their pride. I just broke a front tooth, have no dental insurance (can,t afford it) and was very upfront with the dentist about my situation. I will pay for everything a bit at a time every month until paid off. Didn't beg or plead, they were kind and understanding but my pride took a beating any way. I am no "Downton Abbey" dowager but do believe in dignity. Ah well, the choice between dignity and a gaping black hole in the front of my mouth wasn't as difficult to make as I thought it would be.


I am happy for you that you had the strength to go and explain your situation and make arrangements. We really shouldn't make those judgments, it is hard to ignore that space where a tooth should be, though, isn't it? 
Thank goodness for an understanding craftsman.


----------



## DollieD (Mar 7, 2011)

I have read these comments with considerable interest.
I retired in Jan 2013 from a well paying job.
I have always given support to my oldest daughter's 3 children. Most of their clothing and shoes, and activities came from me...almost $8000 yearly...while I worked. Please don't think I am a big meanie...But, my dd's husband has a very low paying job, which he loves. It however, does not support his family. 
When I found myself in a position, some years ago, of doing what I loved, to being able to support my children, I chose to leave the job, and get a much better paying job, with benefits. It is his turn now. I can no longer do that. I need repairs made to my home, and have not had, what one would call, a vacation for some years...home is my vacation..just not being at work is a marvelous vacation for me . DD's family have had a nice vacation yearly. Where did that $$$ come from? 
I feel like this has turned into a rant, against my dd and her husband...but please don't think that. The idea of never getting extra money is a bit daunting. Nothing is going down in cost. I worked from 15 years old to 65...and I'm done. I have to make it...BUT what really interested me about the topic, is something no one mentioned. I am a child of the King, and He has given me so much more daily than I ever had while working. I have Bible reading and prayer time, before any thing else every day. SSI made a mistake in figuring my benefits, and I got back pay, and a nice raise...just what I had told God I needed. I have never neglected to tithe, and give as generously as possible, and have been doubly blessed by that. 
I was sick all the time at work, and have not been sick since retiring. 
I am so enjoying my retirement...and I am going to take one day at a time...until this part of my life is over...life, to me, is seasons...and I am enjoying this one.
Thank you all for your comments...Dollie


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Scruffy's Mum said:


> I think the Disability people feel they have to "go through the motions" of turning people down. So many people getting it who really aren't eligible. Would definitely keep on trying. Good Luck.


There is an unspoken "rule" that you need to turn the person down 2 times before approving them the third. I was in the hospital when I first applied and that was what the social workers said. It is so difficult to get approved, between all the paperwork and the physicals you must get from them in addition to your own doctors, that I think they do it to keep the numbers down because so many people can't or won't try it again. It's ludicrous considering that we paid into the system so we could have the insurance when or if we needed it!


----------



## Nativelady (Oct 20, 2011)

Yes, the govt. has taken money out of SS and used it for other purposes and never paid it back. I did a lot of research for an economics paper in college on this very subject. Social security would never run out if the money was paid back as it should have been.
I retired 6 years ago but worked a part time job until it left the country last May. I didn't make a lot of money but I put most of it into savings; I really miss having the extra funds coming in. The savings go out very fast when you are using them to pay for property taxes, house and car insurance, etc. And now due to the new health care law, our monthly health insurance will go up $43 each next month; we are paying for the people that can't pay. Yes, a fixed income is hard to live on- everything else keeps going up. Without the pt job, vacations are just a memory and I pray that no big medical problem pops up for either of us that will drain what little we have left. I know that we are more fortunate than many but it is not an easy life on a fixed income.


----------



## Abi_marsden (Aug 5, 2012)

Dollied not all people feel like you,and don't want to waste there time praying.but if that gives you strenth you carry on.why should people talk about it? There's enough on here already about a god ect.sorry but I realy don't see the point in it.far more important things to discuss on this subject.


----------



## julie windham (Feb 21, 2011)

One of my former students is now 38, morbidly obese because of a metabolic problem, type 2 brittle diabetic. Her blood pressure is not controlled with medication and she has neuropathy in arms/hands, legs/feet. I worked with her for FIVE years, six applications for SSI. The seventh time we got an attorney. BINGO! The attorney is not allowed to ask for more than a small percentage of the settlement, and hers never charged her at all (God bless the man). Of course, her boyfriend pays their rent, so all she got was $350 a month, but he has since lost his job and she has refiled for additional money. Think ATTORNEY.


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> There is an unspoken "rule" that you need to turn the person down 2 times before approving them the third. quote]
> 
> That was what I had always heard. When I went to the doctor to get fixed/glued/stapled back together I was told to apply for disability. I did not get a lawyer but gave detailed answers to EVERY question and 8 months later I was approved. No denials. Easy. Guess it was meant to be although I would rather be working.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Nativelady said:


> Yes, the govt. has taken money out of SS and used it for other purposes and never paid it back. I did a lot of research for an economics paper in college on this very subject. Social security would never run out if the money was paid back as it should have been.
> I retired 6 years ago but worked a part time job until it left the country last May. I didn't make a lot of money but I put most of it into savings; I really miss having the extra funds coming in. The savings go out very fast when you are using them to pay for property taxes, house and car insurance, etc. And now due to the new health care law, our monthly health insurance will go up $43 each next month; we are paying for the people that can't pay. Yes, a fixed income is hard to live on- everything else keeps going up. Without the pt job, vacations are just a memory and I pray that no big medical problem pops up for either of us that will drain what little we have left. I know that we are more fortunate than many but it is not an easy life on a fixed income.


I am never quite sure of the why of people wanting to pass this fable about SS funds along... The fund was set up so as to require investing the money. The US Treasury is the THE SAFEST INVESTMENT.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/transactions.html

http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/transactions.cgi


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Yes, I am on that fixed income too. I love retirement. I don't want to get political, but how you vote is the only thing that will either make things better for us or make things worse. Tom Harkin, senator from Iowa, has a plan to increase social security for everyone. Elizabeth Warren and some others have joined him, but the republicans will fight it all the way. Republicans have been trying ever since SS was first started to get rid of it. If we are ever under complete republican control, it may just happen. Sorry if the political stuff offends anyone, but in all honesty, that is the only thing we can do. Don't vote against your own self interest. I am off my soap box now.


----------



## eahite (Aug 26, 2013)

Here is what I do have : A house, two lovely adult children, four wonderful grandsons, three silly little dogs , an old car(1993) that still runs,a rather sardonic but still functioning sense of humor, a small but cherished group of real friends and a mind that can still do cross word puzzles but has never conquered Suduko!! Some how a broken tooth and wounded pride doesn't seem that important when I count up all of that !


----------



## Misty Mama (Dec 13, 2013)

Fixed income! My husband was kicked out of a company he partially owned. They the friends in Italy begged him to staeprt. In five years it was doing tremendous..on thr brink of unheard of expansion... They that Italian couldn't believ he was able to thud in. Such a short time... So they walked in told hin he was done ,took the car,cell phone and computer and told him his stock was worth nothing .. When already had a signed contact for said explosion of business. We had moved 4 houses to a different house fron the lifelong home that was soon to be paid, So we went fron two car two cell phones to one cell one car and no income , he had to take ss early ss and I was 2 years younger had to also go to early. Ss so yep I know what fixed income is. It means no travel to see kids or grand kids much less the dream of traveling,and no eating out which was our entertainment, however, putting the bitterness aside we do make and find much enjoyment in small things ,,I look at thrift shops for my yarn and buy when on. Sale sorry for the vent. Life is good as God is my light


----------



## Abi_marsden (Aug 5, 2012)

Hear hear.so pleased there are still basic people in the world that realise what's inportant to tthem.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Misty Mama said:


> Fixed income! My husband was kicked out of a company he partially owned. They the friends in Italy begged him to staeprt. In five years it was doing tremendous..on thr brink of unheard of expansion... They that Italian couldn't believ he was able to thud in. Such a short time... So they walked in told hin he was done ,took the car,cell phone and computer and told him his stock was worth nothing .. When already had a signed contact for said explosion of business. We had moved 4 houses to a different house fron the lifelong home that was soon to be paid, So we went fron two car two cell phones to one cell one car and no income , he had to take ss early ss and I was 2 years younger had to also go to early. Ss so yep I know what fixed income is. It means no travel to see kids or grand kids much less the dream of traveling,and no eating out which was our entertainment, however, putting the bitterness aside we do make and find much enjoyment in small things ,,I look at thrift shops for my yarn and buy when on. Sale sorry for the vent. Life is good as God is my light


All of that must have been quite a shock! It is good to see that you can find some positives. And you have all of those good memories! Best of luck.


----------



## cinjean48 (Sep 16, 2013)

Abi_marsden said:


> Dollied not all people feel like you,and don't want to waste there time praying.but if that gives you strenth you carry on.why should people talk about it? There's enough on here already about a god ect.sorry but I realy don't see the point in it.far more important things to discuss on this subject.


Why did you find it necessary to be rude to Dollied? We all have our opinions and beliefs and may not agree with all of them but isn't that what makes the world go round. I was always taught that if you couldn't say something nice, don't say anything at all


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

cinjean48 said:


> Why did you find it necessary to be rude to Dollied? We all have our opinions and beliefs and may not agree with all of them but isn't that what makes the world go round. I was always taught that if you couldn't say something nice, don't say anything at all


Why is it that people always feel that what they think is "nice" and that the person they disagree with is not "nice"?
We all have a right to state our opinions here.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

One thing I found out, quite by accident, was that the city of Cedar Rapids gives a discount to seniors on their water bill according to their income. I had to fill out a paper, reporting my income and the discount comes out to be almost half. I was just on their web site and say it there. Don't know if other places do that, but it never hurts to ask. As far as things like cable, remember the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I complained once about the promotion to get new customers. I said they get the great deal and I am the loyal customer for the last 15 years and I get nothing. They did finally give me a small discount for a year. 
It is snowing again here today. Glad I am on that fixed income and can stay home.


----------



## Alpaca Farmer (Jan 19, 2011)

We too live on SS. Don't have a pension. We both worked hard for all our lives too, and now the government wants to call our social security money a "benefit". It was taken from our check whether we liked it or not.
So, to supplement our income a bit, we have our alpaca store. It barely covers the cost of keeping the alpacas but it brings people to us and we get to show off our alpacas. We are trying very hard to downsize our numbers. The big bucks that people made 15+ years ago is not there any longer. We made no big bucks. 
Now I read that the government is cutting off people on unemployment because there are not any funds left. Why are there always funds to pay congress and other government officials? Why does it have to be the people who are struggling to keep their home, feed their family, etc., people who would be willing to work if the jobs were available. 
Yes, we know what fixed income is. Every day that something doesn't break down, like a kitchen appliance, or vehicle, is a day that we are grateful. Next summer we need to replace our furnace. Hopefully that will be our only major additional expense for the year. 
I do express my gratitude to God for our blessings. We have our health for the present, we have a large garden, I have all the alpaca yarn that I want for knitting, we have each other. We just don't have enough money to go around.


----------



## Abi_marsden (Aug 5, 2012)

I wasn't being rude jelun2 is so very correct in what she says.just becourse you don't like what I said does not make me being rude.im simply saying this talk has been great so far,yet she said we all forget to mention god.well that could be becourse we don't want to.not everyone believes in your so god.i for one don't believe yet on this sight I get it shoved down my throat,day by day.but I love it on hear so no I won't stop going on it.if you took it the wrong way that is not my fault.you read it wrong.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Alpaca Farmer said:


> We too live on SS. Don't have a pension. We both worked hard for all our lives too, and now the government wants to call our social security money a "benefit". It was taken from our check whether we liked it or not.
> So, to supplement our income a bit, we have our alpaca store. It barely covers the cost of keeping the alpacas but it brings people to us and we get to show off our alpacas. We are trying very hard to downsize our numbers. The big bucks that people made 15+ years ago is not there any longer. We made no big bucks.
> Now I read that the government is cutting off people on unemployment because there are not any funds left. Why are there always funds to pay congress and other government officials? Why does it have to be the people who are struggling to keep their home, feed their family, etc., people who would be willing to work if the jobs were available.
> Yes, we know what fixed income is. Every day that something doesn't break down, like a kitchen appliance, or vehicle, is a day that we are grateful. Next summer we need to replace our furnace. Hopefully that will be our only major additional expense for the year.
> I do express my gratitude to God for our blessings. We have our health for the present, we have a large garden, I have all the alpaca yarn that I want for knitting, we have each other. We just don't have enough money to go around.


Sometimes we have to reassess those things that we WANT to do, when I retired I openned a store which was something that I had wanted to do for years. I had to close it since what I wanted to do was not what other people in my community wanted. <shrug> I was in the same situation as you say you are in, just this side of it paying for itself. The relaxation and substitute activities are well worth having left that behind. Just something to consider. 
You will have to ask your Paul Ryan and his cohorts why there may be no extension on unemployment benefits. 
I am not sure why you object to the benefit word, it is a common term in insurance and that is basically what people are collecting.


----------



## eahite (Aug 26, 2013)

We seem to be have many of the same financial concerns although we probably come from a wide range of back grounds and beliefs. It seems to me that Respect for each other is essential in all aspects of life in order to communicate constructively. We can be a terrific support system for each other if we only remember that not every one has to think or believe the same. Try to be positive and helpful in your replies. Expect the respect you deserve when voicing your concerns and difficulties. Reach out with sympathy not scorn. You are only as good as you treat other people. This has turned into more than a knitting and crocheting forum. Perhaps we "elders" need our own forum to turn to when we need advice, sympathy or just a verbal affirmation that we still count in this life.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

One thing I found out, quite by accident, was that the city of Cedar Rapids gives a discount to seniors on their water bill according to their income. I had to fill out a paper, reporting my income and the discount comes out to be almost half. I was just on their web site and say it there. Don't know if other places do that, but it never hurts to ask. As far as things like cable, remember the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I complained once about the promotion to get new customers. I said they get the great deal and I am the loyal customer for the last 15 years and I get nothing. They did finally give me a small discount for a year. 
It is snowing again here today. Glad I am on that fixed income and can stay home.


----------



## leoanne (Feb 7, 2011)

My husband and I both retired at 62. I thought I had all the finances figured out. Boy was I in for a shock. Gasoline has skyrocketed. Social Security got NO raises for about 5 years because it is determined by inflation which govt said hadn't gone up.WHAT. food has gone up, utilities, gas. Our house is not paid for. At present we are making it. As long as our health holds up. Have no dental or eye care on Medicare. All out of pocket. Have a 99 toyota which keeps plugging along. We have four married daughters who have all said we could live with them but husband and I want to stay independent as long as we can.


----------



## yarncrazy102 (Mar 16, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> .


Oh, boy! Sort of says it all. How about those who are truly on a fixed income and have adult children back home or are raising grandchildren? I know that since our daughter separated from her husband our outgoing monthly costs have gone up considerably. (He doesn't contribute a dime.) She does contribute but who would have thought that her moving back in would raise our domestic water bill by $45 a quarter or our fuel bill by $27 monthly? This doesn't include groceries either. She is disabled and her SSD isn't enough to spit on. Remember the old days when our parents moved in with us or the spinster aunt? My Granddad lived with us until he died when I was a child. No one thought anything of it. It was just life. Maybe we should gather together in communities (not assisted living) and begin to learn to share. ;-)


----------



## leoanne (Feb 7, 2011)

By the way, our town gives a discount to seniors on water bill. 25 dollars off of a 350 bill. Not much of a discount. I also could get 250 off of a 5000 property tax bill if I laid out all my financial info for the town hall. Really don't want my neighbors knowing everything about me. ( They work at the town hall).


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

leoanne said:


> My husband and I both retired at 62. I thought I had all the finances figured out. Boy was I in for a shock. Gasoline has skyrocketed. Social Security got NO raises for about 5 years because it is determined by inflation which govt said hadn't gone up.WHAT. food has gone up, utilities, gas. Our house is not paid for. At present we are making it. As long as our health holds up. Have no dental or eye care on Medicare. All out of pocket. Have a 99 toyota which keeps plugging along. We have four married daughters who have all said we could live with them but husband and I want to stay independent as long as we can.


It only FEELS as if you have had no COLA increases...

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html


----------



## yorkie1 (Sep 5, 2011)

OH, boy, My SS went up 1.5% for 2014. GREAT! OOPS, the premium also went up leaving me with a $26.00 "cost of living" raise for 2014. 
Now how am I going to divide this so it will cover all the expenses that have gone up. 
I also planned for retirement and have some saved to supplement my SS, but everything keeps going up so much it's getting harder and harder to make it stretch out far enough to cover just the basics. 
I definitely know what a fixed income is. :-( :-( :-(


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

I had to retire a year and-a-half ago due to medical reasons. I am more fortunate than many others because I have a pension and had invested in the city's 457K plan. Since I had to retire early my pension is only 3/4 what it could have been, so the $ I get from the 457K each month comes in _really_ handy. I would be sitting a lot prettier if my house was paid off. Oh well. I won't be eligible for SS for another 6 or 7 years.

I don't have a problem with the fixed income aspect. I think the one thing I found "hard" is the $ coming in only once a month after being paid bi-weekly in my job. :-D So the first of every month I pay all my bills & do the month's shopping, then I divide what's left by 4 or 5 (depending on the number of weeks in the month)to get the amount I will be able to spend each week for "extras."

Insurance is very important, and I'm lucky there, too. I was able to keep the great medical insurance I had at work & it is taken out of my pension each month--even better, the city pays part of it for me.

I was able to stay on the dental insurance through COBRA, but that ended this month. So I shopped around and found an individual dental insurance plan through Blue Shield that only costs $20.80 per month and it will start in January.

All in all, I'm doing good. When I get my outstanding debts off my back I'll be doing a lot better. Wish I could go back in time and kick myself in the keester in regards to credit cards!! I've gotten rid of all of them now, so living within my income is easier. :-D


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Lori Putz said:


> Keep pushing on his disability. A dear friend's wife was a lawyer and suffered an aneurysm in the brain. They were able to get it out but she had to relearn to read and function. The disability board told them that she could still be a lawyer's assistant. My friend didn't give up as he knew he was right. A good lawyer in this area was able to get them disability and help her to begin the process of relearning as much as possible.


Disability can be hard to get. A friend of mine was a barber, had a stroke and was able to use only one hand. They turned him down too, so they got a lawyer and fought to get it. Don't know how he was to cut hair with one hand. My niece though, after a motorcycle accident, was able to get on the first try.


----------



## gma11331 (Oct 18, 2011)

Tietatissa said:


> I too am on fixed income. I dumped cable 2 years ago and got a ROKU box for around $90 (at the time, cheaper now). Just had to keep internet connection. Works perfect! If you want to keep just your local channels call your provider and they will fix you up a plan. My sons said I was cheap, so they pay the cable now and I still have the use of my ROKU AND I have some money to buy more yarn!!


I also have Roku and only paid $60 for it at Best Buy a few months ago.


----------



## gma11331 (Oct 18, 2011)

As I read this I count my blessings. My late DH had an excellent pension thru the San Francisco Fire Dept. and from which I benefit now, including the same health insurance (Kaiser) we have had for almost 48 years. My SS is so meager that I would starve it I had to live on it alone. I didn't work a "regular" job after we married but did do part-time work that carried no benefits throughout the years.


----------



## Irish knitter (Mar 29, 2011)

I was reading this thread earlier and saw a little "sqabble" about religion and it being on here. I for one; just getting back to church after 16 years would welcome a thread where there could be support and discussions for new people coming back and newbies to get the support that they need. I know...most people get it from their local church however some of us are isolated and churches are too far away; gas is costly;etc.
Please...do not shoot me down for this....just expressing a need.


----------



## Misty Mama (Dec 13, 2013)

Hanks jelun2. It was a horrific shock especially for my husband , took away his self worth.. We had a two year legal battle that he needed to fight, it was for naught, but we are adjusting and going on.. That is the only option to go on that is and take what we receive and be thankful. This forum is a lifesaver for me I see so much talent and lovely items that are created. And people supporting people .. And paying it forward with kindness and answers to such varied questions


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Alpaca Farmer said:


> We too live on SS. Don't have a pension. We both worked hard for all our lives too, and now the government wants to call our social security money a "benefit". It was taken from our check whether we liked it or not.
> So, to supplement our income a bit, we have our alpaca store. It barely covers the cost of keeping the alpacas but it brings people to us and we get to show off our alpacas. We are trying very hard to downsize our numbers. The big bucks that people made 15+ years ago is not there any longer. We made no big bucks.
> Now I read that the government is cutting off people on unemployment because there are not any funds left. Why are there always funds to pay congress and other government officials? Why does it have to be the people who are struggling to keep their home, feed their family, etc., people who would be willing to work if the jobs were available.
> Yes, we know what fixed income is. Every day that something doesn't break down, like a kitchen appliance, or vehicle, is a day that we are grateful. Next summer we need to replace our furnace. Hopefully that will be our only major additional expense for the year.
> I do express my gratitude to God for our blessings. We have our health for the present, we have a large garden, I have all the alpaca yarn that I want for knitting, we have each other. We just don't have enough money to go around.


Just remember this when it comes time to vote. Who is it that wants to cut unemployment benefits, but will not pass a jobs bill? Who is it that wants to cut food stamps for the poor, but will not cut subsidies for wealthy farmers and big oil? There is something really wrong with our government.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Irish knitter said:


> I was reading this thread earlier and saw a little "sqabble" about religion and it being on here. I for one; just getting back to church after 16 years would welcome a thread where there could be support and discussions for new people coming back and newbies to get the support that they need. I know...most people get it from their local church however some of us are isolated and churches are too far away; gas is costly;etc.
> Please...do not shoot me down for this....just expressing a need.


We all have a need for spiritual support. LOL, I understand perfectly, I am a deist and very often feel like an outsider despite being a believer... 
If I were you I would start a thread and label it as, hmmm, Christian or religious, something along that line. 
I don't think any of us, even we feisty ones, mean to have altercations. They happen because we get taken by surprise by something, I think. 
So if something were labelled... I know I wouldn't be going there if it said Christian.


----------



## Limeygal (Sep 27, 2012)

Money was taken out of a dedicated SS fund and the money rolled. Into the general fund. I think it was Johnson. And basically that is why SS has become an iffy proposition for the future.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

And there you are, everywhere I look on the website...ads for Roku!


----------



## abigailbaby (Dec 4, 2011)

I live on a pension and ss but I don't refer to it as a fixed income. I call it my diminishing income because it stays the same as prices for everything go up. Gas prices keep fluctuating, groceries prices go up and it is harder to buy fresh fruit & veggies. Need definitely leaves nothing for want in my case. Thank goodness for my family. Fresh and canned veggies from their gardens, gifts of yarn and knitting supplies, and treating me to lunches out. Surely not where I expected to be at 71.


----------



## alvadee (Nov 21, 2013)

Wow ! This went from " fixed income " all the way to religion and on to politics ! Politics is where I step out. I'm into knitting where everyone gets along. Y'all have a happy, healthy new year.


----------



## kaysped (Aug 11, 2012)

Limeygal said:


> Money was taken out of a dedicated SS fund and the money rolled. Into the general fund. I think it was Johnson. And basically that is why SS has become an iffy proposition for the future.


Roosevelt rolled the money into the general fund within the first year that the money began being collected. Suit went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled it constitutional to do so, therefore, we have never had the "lockbox" that the politicians keep yammering about.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Limeygal said:


> Money was taken out of a dedicated SS fund and the money rolled. Into the general fund. I think it was Johnson. And basically that is why SS has become an iffy proposition for the future.


I think that it is called investment and is the reason that there is money there to support people presently never mind into the future. 
It has always been required that monies be invested since the inception, I believe.


----------



## nitchik (May 30, 2011)

Oh yes, I now know what fixed income is.
It not only means the same amount every month for the rest of my life, but even the little extra given by SS is taken away, one way or another.
For example, in the New Year I get an additional $9 monthly for SS but my Medicare cost will go up by $10 per month, so I'm worse off by $1!


----------



## knitnanny (Feb 28, 2012)

As a retired social worker, I definitely know what it means as I sometimes had to help people with their groceries and they always had to put items back at the checkout. As a child, my parents were not well off so I learned how to watch every penny and to make things last or to wait for the sales. I admire anyone that has to live in dread of prices going up and wish I could win the lottery so I could help as many people as possible...


----------



## Emma544 (Jul 22, 2013)

This is getting political. Bowing out now. Back to my knitting.


----------



## Gabbie (Apr 5, 2011)

Ahhh yes, the dreaded 'fixed income'!!
I was disabled in 2002, so I've been 'fixed' for about 11 years. I do the same when someone raises their price. I'm hearing impaired so my Sis calls for me. I never thought about rising prices until I retired. I think everyone should have special 'senior' discounts....but that's just me.
I make sure all my bills are paid first, whatever is left is mine.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

kaysped said:


> Roosevelt rolled the money into the general fund within the first year that the money began being collected. Suit went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled it constitutional to do so, therefore, we have never had the "lockbox" that the politicians keep yammering about.


The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

nitchik said:


> Oh yes, I now know what fixed income is.
> It not only means the same amount every month for the rest of my life, but even the little extra given by SS is taken away, one way or another.
> For example, in the New Year I get an additional $9 monthly for SS but my Medicare cost will go up by $10 per month, so I'm worse off by $1!


As far as I know Medicare will stay the same as it was in 2013 which is $104.90.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Emma544 said:


> Please understand that it is not only retired people on a fixed income. I work in education and wish I had a fixed income. We have had a pay freeze for 5 years. Now we have to pay for our insurance and have a $6000.00 deducticle, in order to get a better rate! I a actually taking home LESS money than I did 10 years ago.
> 
> Many days I ask myself why I continue to work in education. LESS money, everyone complains about what we do, MORE standards to be met, LESS respect from the community. Fortunately I love my job and working with students.
> 
> ...


I agree Emma. I do not think of receiving monthly SS income as "fixed income." Fixed Income to me means exactly that; receiving a fixed amount of income from your investments that you previously planned or budgeted for and invested in to have in your retirement years or after you stopped earning compensation.

For example, your 401(K) withdrawals at a monthly 'fixed' amount you decided upon. I have never sought to think of monies I contributed to SS during my earning years to be income returned to me in my retirement.

SS was never meant to be a person's sole source of income after the age of eligibility and should never be relied upon either. Of course, many folks only have SS as a source of income if they did not contribute to any retirement and/or investment assets or annuities for themselves. Also, SS is adjusted (since the 70's I believe) for COLA/inflation so it does change regularly and is based on what one earned and contributed as well. President Obama did try to change the CPI indexing of SS payments (if effective, he would have lowered all recipient's monthly amount but Obama's efforts did not pass.)


----------



## kiwifrau (Jan 2, 2013)

Just read this on the Internet...
For those who need help with their food loss during the ice storm.


Grocery gift cards available to ice storm victims

City Centre Mirror

People in need who lost food after the ice storm can go to an Ontario Works office in Toronto and receive a $50 or $100 gift card for groceries, Ontarios government announced on Monday, Dec. 30. 

The province said the cards would be available only between Tuesday, Dec. 31 and Friday, Jan. 3. The 15 offices will not be open on New Years Day, but will extend their hours Thursday until 7 p.m. 

In the announcement, Premier Kathleen Wynne said Loblaw, Shoppers Drug Mart, Metro and Sobeys have each contributed $25,000 to this community initiative, funds she said the province will match. 

We want to make sure we are doing everything we can to support people who need the help so that they are safe and cared for during this difficult time, Wynne said. 

The Daily Bread Food Bank, which is co-ordinating distribution of the funds, is seeking additional donations, including gift cards. 

The province said families in need would be eligible to get a $100 card, and individuals could get a $50 card. 

The announcement did not give details on which families or individuals were eligible, but said the program was meant to help those who have experienced hardship with the loss of perishable food due to prolonged power outages. 

Residents must bring proof of their home address and declare how many people are in the household, the province said.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DollieD said:


> BUT what really interested me about the topic, is something no one mentioned. I am a child of the King, and He has given me so much more daily than I ever had while working. I have Bible reading and prayer time, before any thing else every day. SSI made a mistake in figuring my benefits, and I got back pay, and a nice raise...just what I had told God I needed. I have never neglected to tithe, and give as generously as possible, and have been doubly blessed by that.
> I was sick all the time at work, and have not been sick since retiring.
> I am so enjoying my retirement...and I am going to take one day at a time...until this part of my life is over...life, to me, is seasons...and I am enjoying this one.
> Thank you all for your comments...Dollie


 :thumbup: Thank you for your message Dollie!


----------



## Abi_marsden (Aug 5, 2012)

Jeiun2 hear hear I totaly agree if people want to talk reglion why not keep it on a sepreate post.then us no believers wouldn't have to be bored and read it.its quite simple.yet I'm forever getting shouted down on the sight.why can't people just get it I do not believe in religion.end of.and yes I do live a complete life.


----------



## LEE1313 (Jan 25, 2011)

Well just another issue, cell phones.
I had Verizon, had the $69.00 month plan, nothing fancy and plain phone. Spoke to them for months trying to get a lower rate. They were not interested in what I had to say.
So I switched to Straight Talk (Walmart) for $30 a month. WOW same service, no dropped calls. And basic plain phone.
Works for me.
And I know where the day old bread stores are. Stock up there. Gas is so pricey that I plan my shopping carefully.
But I am thankful I wake up every morning and do the best I can.


----------



## nitchik (May 30, 2011)

NJG said:


> As far as I know Medicare will stay the same as it was in 2013 which is $104.90.


Oh, sorry, I failed to go into details. It's the Advantage part of Medicare that goes up for me this coming year, not the basic Medicare.


----------



## calisuzi (Apr 1, 2013)

I always knew exactly what it meant, just didn't realize how bad it is to live on one, especially when it's as low as mine. Oh how I miss that weekly paycheck.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

ultrahiggs said:


> Tell me, coming from the UK, what is 401k everybody is talking about


In the US, employers may offer employees the option to invest a portion of their compensation into a retirement (savings) account. Money is contributed before it is taxed and earnings are also tax deferred as no income taxes are due until money begins to be withdrawn from the 401(K) account. The account is managed by the employer and under our govt rules, but is the employee's money. Many employers also contribute amounts into the employees' accounts as determined by the employer (an offered benefit of employment).

Withdrawls are mandated at specificied ages and calculated amount and taxed in the year of withdrawal. This is an exact example of a "Fixed Income."

Money can be withdrawn before scheduled with higher penalties and, of course, taxes due in the year of the withdrawal if not for an allowed purpose.


----------



## calisuzi (Apr 1, 2013)

Crochetnknit, also had to leave an area I love so I could afford rent and ended up with higher electric in summer (air conditioning) and gas for heat in the winter and food is more expensive. Have a roof over my head so can't complain and total lack of friends here gives me more knitting time. Thank you for letting me whine, I needed that.


----------



## yorkie1 (Sep 5, 2011)

I got my New Benefit Amount from SS this month. It says "Your SS benefets will increase by 1.5% in 2014 because of a rise in the cost of living. 
After the amount taken out for Medicare medical ins.I will get a $21.00 raise. (this always goes up after each rasise.) :-( 
That's going to go a long way on covering the cost of living raise, HUH!


----------



## chickkie (Oct 26, 2011)

Abi_marsden said:


> Jeiun2 hear hear I totaly agree if people want to talk reglion why not keep it on a sepreate post.then us no believers wouldn't have to be bored and read it.its quite simple.yet I'm forever getting shouted down on the sight.why can't people just get it I do not believe in religion.end of.and yes I do live a complete life.


and the rest of us would not have to be bored reading your rant about not wanting to see anything about religion. You said it once, let it go. Don't keep bringing it up. Saying it once is expressing an opinion. Keep saying it and it becomes a rant


----------



## gma11331 (Oct 18, 2011)

yorkie1 said:


> I got my New Benefit Amount from SS this month. It says "Your SS benefets will increase by 1.5% in 2014 because of a rise in the cost of living.
> After the amount taken out for Medicare medical ins.I will get a $21.00 raise. (this always goes up after each rasise.) :-(
> That's going to go a long way on covering the cost of living raise, HUH!


Better than my $10 raise!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

nitchik said:


> Oh, sorry, I failed to go into details. It's the Advantage part of Medicare that goes up for me this coming year, not the basic Medicare.


Ok, so your supplement went up as I think every ones does, every year. Doesn't seem fair that you get a raise and then someone else takes it. Mine went up just because I got a year older. No way I can control that. I just changed my Part D to a new provider so I won't have a deductible, but will pay a little higher premium, but will pay a little less for prescriptions and will be able to increase the dosage on one that my previous insurance wouldn't allow. Really have to do a lot of research to keep up with the changes. Nothing is ever easy, is it?


----------



## calisuzi (Apr 1, 2013)

gamma1331, and a lot better than my $14.00's.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Abi_marsden said:


> Jeiun2 hear hear I totaly agree if people want to talk reglion why not keep it on a sepreate post.then us no believers wouldn't have to be bored and read it.its quite simple.yet I'm forever getting shouted down on the sight.why can't people just get it I do not believe in religion.end of.and yes I do live a complete life.


The thing is, Abi_marsden, we all have a right to speak our minds. Being in the minority means that voice is not shared by so many. 
That freedom is on every thread and not restricted to any specific place. 
People can't get it because they don't want to get it. Just as you cannot understand those of us who do believe in God, I think. 
When one is in the majority is is very easy to forget that others may not celebrate being "the child of the King" or whatever so when they chide us for not believing we need to forgive them. They don't understand what they are doing. 
Just let it go and enjoy your own comforts, eh?


----------



## Valkyrie (Feb 26, 2011)

Hudson said:


> My husband has worked for himself for decades so there will be no retirement for us. We live on a fixed income: what he charges the company he works with! I can adjust our food expenses but increases in gasoline and utility prices make me mad! From where is that extra money supposed to come? And shopping for affordable care insurance has been a mess. Apparently we are going to spend $300 plus a month and not have help until our deductable of $12,800!!! I hope to NEVER be that sick!


Hudson, you could spend that much, $12,800 in one day if you first go to the E.R., have expensive tests, then spend one night in ICU. So at least you don't have to worry that you would be kicked out the second day (just kiddin).It used to be against hospitals policy to discharge a pt from an ICU, they first have to go to a general floor for safetys sake.

:? :?


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

I'm typing on a tiny cell phone with a mini stylus but 3rd time's gonna work!

One way to save money is to cook with dehydrated/freeze dried foods. If there are any LDS ladies on this forum we could exchange recipes.

I live alone and cannot afford to lose food to spoilage due to a power outage or not using it fast enough.

I made brownies from scratch today and used egg powder and shortening powder. They melt in your mouth and there isn't a mix anywhere that would taste as good.

Tonight's dinner will be a chicken breast, re-hydrated spinach and a potato topped with chhese sauce made from cheese powder. I will be drinking powdered milk.

I have many such items in my fridge, freezer and pantry. They are lifesavers.

Here it is, the end of the month but I don't need to go to the store.

In an emergency I will use my dry foods with confidence because I have been using them all along. Not exclusively, but enough that I am not intimidated by a #10 size can of anything.

I've read that despite labels, all such products come from the same place, so buy based on price. 

Butter powder, bulk cinnamon, sour cream powder....great stuff!


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> If your son is disabled why is he not collecting a SS check as well? I would think that he would qualify.
> I know I will get blasted again, but, if you are on SS and a small pension how have your taxes gone up? The only federal increase has been for people making more than 200K as a single.
> If you are talking local property taxes, PLEASE, check into the abatements for those who are older. That is a hefty gift for folks who own their own homes.
> Sorry for all your troubles.


What abatements?


----------



## mkjfrj (Apr 2, 2011)

I guess, I was expecting "fixed" income when I retired but somehow I didn't realize what an impact it would have on my life and my life style. We were doing fine until my husband needed the first of two back surgeries; extra doctor and medication bills add up quickly. Then he needed a hip replacement - doctors and medication again.


Does it ever end for us seniors. I'm afraid we're going to run out of money before we run out of living. Oh yes, and our life style has also changed drastically. Take for example tickets for the theater or classical concerts - these run upwards to $100 each; we've had to completely cut out our classical series concerts whereas when we were still working, we had a season membership.

I guess, you just learn to adjust and not complain about it; complaining only makes you angry and no one really cares.


----------



## K2P2 knitter (Jan 31, 2013)

I know exactly what it is to live on a fixed income. My husband retired the same time I did. We both receive Social Security and I receive a pension. My husbands health has gone down hill since he retired. His medical expenses are eating up our income. Yes we have Medicare and supplemental insurance but his medication expenses are through the roof. Try 2 shots per day at a cost of $150.00 per shot. Hopefully he will be able to get off the shots within the next few weeks which will really help our budget.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Valkyrie said:


> Hudson, you could spend that much, $12,800 in one day if you first go to the E.R., have expensive tests, then spend one night in ICU. So at least you don't have to worry that you would be kicked out the second day (just kiddin).It used to be against hospitals policy to discharge a pt from an ICU, they first have to go to a general floor for safetys sake.
> 
> :? :?


I am not sure about this, but, I think that I read that the preventative services are available regardless of the deductible. 
As I say, don't quote me on it. 
You are absolutely correct, though. That kind of emergency is exactly the sort of reason that people need to have health insurance. Honestly, 3600 dollars a year doesn't seem like much to cover two people.


----------



## weimfam (Aug 7, 2011)

I am also in your place. It seems I could always come up with a few extra dollars if I needed to when working. Now, I know what "fixed income" means. A car repair or having the kids over for a meal can do irreparable harm! I understand, but unfortunately have no answers for you.


----------



## bunnee3742 (May 15, 2012)

We are managing nicely on our SS income because we never lived high off the hog to begin with. We rarely went out to dinner and expensive theaters and concerts but always lived quite simply. You don't miss what you never had. But I can understand how folks who are used to the more expensive things in life would certainly miss all that.


----------



## weimfam (Aug 7, 2011)

Exactly! We thought we were set for the future, but lost all of our "stash" we were counting on as backup due to the economy in the past ten years. Now we exist totally on SS. I thought I was all grown up & finally really DID know it all. Wrong! This is truly a learning experience!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

weimfam said:


> Exactly! We thought we were set for the future, but lost all of our "stash" we were counting on as backup due to the economy in the past ten years. Now we exist totally on SS. I thought I was all grown up & finally really DID know it all. Wrong! This is truly a learning experience!


Sounds like you have a good attitude about it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bunnee3742 said:


> We are managing nicely on our SS income because we never lived high off the hog to begin with. We rarely went out to dinner and expensive theaters and concerts but always lived quite simply. You don't miss what you never had. But I can understand how folks who are used to the more expensive things in life would certainly miss all that.


Uh huh, I was clearly working class. I chose a profession that didn't allow for frills and while the kids' father was good about helping out it was with things that he wanted to do. And, of course they have been grown for 20 years. LOL, I can't blame them for keeping me from saving those last several years. 
There are those who like to make digs about the time I spend on here, what can I say? It is my entertainment. It's free and it's legal. That works for me. 
Anyway, life is what it is, I am glad to see that you have such a great attitude about how it is.


----------



## chubs (Nov 5, 2011)

I feel like I have been on "fixed" income all my life. What I made working was "fixed" and prayed I wouldn't lose my job by lay off. I didn't have much growing up so was used to making do with what I had . Learned to cook "from scratch" , no microwave, fast food places and meals already prepared. I was never one to spend whole paychecks on shoes and clothes. Even now I buy most of my clothes at yard sales . I worked with people that couldn't make it from one paycheck to another. I have seen them leave work at lunch to deposit their paycheck because they were afraid a check would bounce. I wonder how they are doing now....


----------



## Valkyrie (Feb 26, 2011)

cinjean48 said:


> Why did you find it necessary to be rude to Dollied? We all have our opinions and beliefs and may not agree with all of them but isn't that what makes the world go round. I was always taught that if you couldn't say something nice, don't say anything at all


My mother taught me that as well, but do you think mothers tell their sons that? Or do they tell their sons to stick up for themselves, to let their little lights shine, all of which leads to a decision maker, a person who earns respect, and could care less if their employees like them or not. It is better to be respected than to be liked, that is the pathway to independence and success in all things.

:wink:


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You might want to contact your US Representative and let that person know that you are unhappy with the cutbacks to the SNAP program. There was just a HUGE amount cut out of the appropriations. It has hurt many people.
> 
> AND I just remembered this program for those in need, it was intially posted by MaidInBedlam ...
> 
> http://www.fns.usda.gov/csfp/commodity-supplemental-food-program-csfp


Florida does not participate in this.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

misellen said:


> What abatements?


At least in Massachusetts each community has abatements available for those homeowners who are disabled (that may be limited to blind, but, I don't know why it would be) veterans, and seniors, I think the age varies by municipality. 
It is certainly worth checking out with either the tax collector's office or the town assessor. I am pretty sure it was the assessor's office where we did the paperwork. I haven't reached the golden age yet, I had to do it for my mother.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

misellen said:


> Florida does not participate in this.


It's too bad, Florida seems to ignore the needs of it's residents so often.


----------



## chickkie (Oct 26, 2011)

As seniors we can defer our house taxes until we sell the house if we want to.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

chickkie said:


> I really don't understand the stockpiling of items before you retire. IF you save the money you will have it when you retire the same as you do now. I found it takes far less money to live on than we thought it would since we don't have to use the car every day.


Better yet, put that money against your mortgage principal...


----------



## kiwifrau (Jan 2, 2013)

misssusan644 said:


> I'm typing on a tiny cell phone with a mini stylus but 3rd time's gonna work!
> 
> One way to save money is to cook with dehydrated/freeze dried foods. If there are any LDS ladies on this forum we could exchange recipes.
> 
> ...


Sour cream powder????

You must be in the USA, I've never heard of this or haven't I looked for it not knowing that such a product existed.

If you are in the US let me know as I'll be buying some when I'm done there in a couple of weeks. So often I buy the smallest container and still end up throwing at least 1/3rd out.
Also what is re-hydrated spinach?
Would also "LOVE" your recipe for the brownies.

Powdered milk I'll skip, had that in Germany when we weren't able to buy fresh milk due to the Chenoble disaster to that time.

I've just prepared a tray filed with odd/leftover veg's. Red & Yellow peppers, leeks, sweet potatoes, shallots, celery roots and have just added 2 ripe tomato's.
Sprinkled with olive oil, Rosemary, salt & pepper. Once they are baked (30 min's @ 400) I'll divide them into 5 or 6 servings and freeze 4/5.

I'll eat these with a small amount of chicken or just the veg's alone. Really tasty and you will soon have your neighbors asking what your cooking, lol. Guess they can smell the aroma from the vent.

Waiting till 7pm that's when our hydro rates are less. Yes every dime saved all helps.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

NJG said:


> Disability can be hard to get. A friend of mine was a barber, had a stroke and was able to use only one hand. They turned him down too, so they got a lawyer and fought to get it. Don't know how he was to cut hair with one hand. My niece though, after a motorcycle accident, was able to get on the first try.


It's because they don't need to be able to do their current job, but ANY job. I get irritated when I see people taking about people losing third job, or a plant shutting down and them not having the opportunity to get the same job so getting disability (I'm not saying you are saying this, I've seen opinion articles talking about it).

It is very hard to get disability because they could get a job as a Walmart greater (supposedly). I was lucky to get approved the first time (but that was partially do to my "attempt to work", another thing not commonly known, if you try to work and fail you can actually tell them that, it can work in your favor).


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

kiwifrau said:


> Sour cream powder????
> 
> You must be in the USA, I've never heard of this or haven't I looked for it not knowing that such a product existed.
> 
> ...


Amazon has some in the US at least ...
http://www.amazon.com/Provident-Pantry-Shortening-Powder-Oz/dp/B003SPQQC0


----------



## babsbarb (Dec 23, 2012)

Here's something for seniors to think about. Reverse Mortgages. I understand the fees on this can be high, but can be added on to the payback. Just something to consider if you are having a difficult time making ends meet on your current income.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

kiwifrau said:


> Sour cream powder????
> 
> You must be in the USA, I've never heard of this or haven't I looked for it not knowing that such a product existed.
> 
> ...


I have not heard of sour cream powder before, but know there is buttermilk powder. When my kids were little I use to mix powdered milk with regular milk to make it stretch further. You can also freeze milk which may help save a trip to the store when you live in a bad weather state like Iowa.


----------



## chickkie (Oct 26, 2011)

I have lived on a very limited income all my life, so this is not really a change to be living on a fixed income. I have always shopped at thrift stores, mark downs and loss leaders.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Better yet, put that money against your mortgage principal...


What if the item costs a great deal more? If I pay off my mortgage I lose the tax advantage and my bills die with me.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

misellen said:


> Florida does not participate in this.


Odd then that they would have so many contact numbers, eh?

FLORIDA	NSLP Contact: Cathy Quick Chief of Food Distribution Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2nd Floor Mayo Bldg, (M39) 407 S. Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Tel: (850) 617-7159 Fax: (850) 617-7171 Email: [email protected]
OR:
Shenique Bridges (Processing and Ordering) Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2nd Floor Mayo Bldg, (M39) 407 S. Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Tel: (850) 617-7175 Fax: (850) 617-7171 Email: [email protected]
TEFAP Contact:Mazey Strauss Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2nd Floor Mayo Bldg, (M39) 407 S. Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Tel: (850) 617-7167 Fax: (850) 617-7171 Email: [email protected]


----------



## kiwifrau (Jan 2, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Amazon has some in the US at least ...
> http://www.amazon.com/Provident-Pantry-Shortening-Powder-Oz/dp/B003SPQQC0


Thank you! Gosh even some with chives already mixed in lol. Goodness I'm going to feel like a child in a candy store when I'm down in Florida, lol.
Don't mean to sound ignorant, but with being the caregiver to my late DH, I always rushed out shopping bought what we needed and rushed home again. Now I can take my time to look around and see lots of new things.


----------



## missylam (Aug 27, 2011)

I was left with enough to last my lifetime, but friends and family started borrowing and of course only one has bothered to pay me back. Now I just have SS. I should have learned to just say no. They seem to never have enough to pay me anything.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

missylam said:


> I was left with enough to last my lifetime, but friends and family started borrowing and of course only one has bothered to pay me back. Now I just have SS. I should have learned to just say no. They seem to never have enough to pay me anything.


Yup, neither a borrower nor a lender be...


----------



## Nana5 (Aug 17, 2011)

oh yeah.......know what fixed income is.....a year after we retired (6 years ago)...our 401K took a big hit from the downturn of the economy and so at least we have 2SS & 3 pensions......still, my DH went back to work part time just 2 days a week....perfect for me as I have some "alone time" and he is better off having something to keep him busy. The owners of the company love him and treat him great so that is a plus.....fixed income isn't always easy that's for sure! But, we had to make the move from California to Arizona where it is cheaper.......


----------



## grandmann (Feb 4, 2011)

The year 2014 hit me really hard. I won't be 65 until this summer. I was able to get Ins from my company at a high premium. I got notice the other day that the Ins. has gone up so high that it's the amt. of my SSA.I try getting on ACA, I'm in the system but every time I try to pick out the Ins. I get a clich. This Monday I have a appointment with my financial advisor to try to get me on some kind of Ins. that is affordable.

Today I got the bill for our cable use. $203 for the use of our land line phone, computer & TV. A $50 increase this is to the point that we can't afford this. My hubby said don't worry he will take care of this. 

Before I retired I try saving as much as possible. The first year that I retire we got a letter from the IRS saying there was a $4000 mistake on our taxes. The person who did our taxes that year did cover the fine and made the corrections. Yet we had to cover the payment of $4000. That really took a chunk out of our savings. Now we are living from SSA check to SSA check. Today I had to take my SSA check and pay for my health ins. this really hurts. I think once I turn 65 it will be like getting a raise. But who knows what else will go up in the meantime.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> 50 cents? Maybe a wrong decimal place?


I knew something didn't look right with my "#'s" Guess working three 12 hour days in a row will do that to ya. But you got my meaning in the end. Heck I bought some local milk in glass bottles a few years back. I bought 7 quarts, yes my boys were visiting. The cashier said that's expensive. I said but it's good. She said she meant the bottles. 1 dollar deposit on each. I hadn't noticed. I was keeping them at home to use for decorations. Decided they were to expensive to keep for decoration. Imagine my surprise when I returned them to the dairy. They gave me a buck fifty per bottle. That's 50 cents on the dollar. I still buy the milk some times but I'm keeping the bottles as an investment. Where else can I get 50% on my "deposit". LOL


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

Nana5 said:


> oh yeah.......know what fixed income is.....a year after we retired (6 years ago)...our 401K took a big hit from the downturn of the economy and so at least we have 2SS & 3 pensions......still, my DH went back to work part time just 2 days a week....perfect for me as I have some "alone time" and he is better off having something to keep him busy. The owners of the company love him and treat him great so that is a plus.....fixed income isn't always easy that's for sure! But, we had to make the move from California to Arizona where it is cheaper.......


I left my job in 2000 but I kept my 403b there. I've never lost a dime of my money nor my former employer's contribution. Because I invested 25% in a guaranteed vehicle. I've made about 1k every year since I left. Pretty good for no investment in 13 years. Just wish I had made it 50%. But I don't know how much we could put in guaranteed....


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

Kiwifrau, lol, I'm getting lots of practice typing tonight. I just finished this reply and it has disappeared into cyberspace.

Your dinner sounds delicious.

I've never seen dry foods in stores and have always ordered online. Costco has "emergency food" on their website as does Walmart. I have used Thrive, Emergency Essentials and Augason Farms. All are online.

Unopened, shelf life is 25 years if kept in a cool and dark location. Once opened, the shelf life is 1 year. I keep my opened cans in the refrigerator and that extends their time.

Spinach flakes is spinach that has had all the moisture removed. Great for soups. I have some peanut butter powder that tastes great so now I want to make cookies with it.

BROWNIES

1/2 cup plus 5 tablespoons sugar
1/2 cup plus 1 tablespoon olive oil
1 tablespoon water
1 egg
1 teaspoon vanilla
1/2 cup plus 2 1/2 tablespoons flour
6 tablespoons cocoa powder
1/4 teaspoon baking powder
1/8 teaspoon salt

Note: if using shortening powder use 1/2 cup and 1/4 cup of water.
If using powdered egg follow directions on the can.

Mix well using a hand mixer. 350 degrees for 15-20 minutes. 8x8 pan.


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> It's because they don't need to be able to do their current job, but ANY job. I get irritated when I see people taking about people losing third job, or a plant shutting down and them not having the opportunity to get the same job so getting disability (I'm not saying you are saying this, I've seen opinion articles talking about it).
> 
> It is very hard to get disability because they could get a job as a Walmart greater (supposedly). I was lucky to get approved the first time (but that was partially do to my "attempt to work", another thing not commonly known, if you try to work and fail you can actually tell them that, it can work in your favor).


I'll bet that's why I got approved so quickly. I had 30 jobs in 8 years and it was because of the extensive testing I went through for disability that I found out I had a learning disability. I always suspected it but wasn't sure.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

You can order on line from WalMart and pay no shipping if you spend $50. Also at Target if you want to order something on line, use their Red Card and you pay no shipping and get a 5% discount. The Red Card is a credit card or a debit card, which is what I have. It takes the money right out of your bank account like your usual debit card. Also if you use it at the Target store, you get a 5% discount.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> You can order on line from WalMart and pay no shipping if you spend $50. Also at Target if you want to order something on line, use their Red Card and you pay no shipping and get a 5% discount. The Red Card is a credit card or a debit card, which is what I have. It takes the money right out of your bank account like your usual debit card. Also if you use it at the Target store, you get a 5% discount.


I will have to look around to see if there are some wacky survivalists I can buy some from. Such great choices for giving my money away.


----------



## DollieD (Mar 7, 2011)

ultrahiggs said:


> Tell me, coming from the UK, what is 401k everybody is talking about


A 401K is where you voluntarily have a certain amount of money taken out of your paycheck weekly, and put it into stocks, bonds, whatever, for when you retire. Then, you can draw it out in a lump sum (heavy penalties), or draw it out as monthly income for a set # of years. Social Security is automatically deducted from your paycheck, and upon retirement you get a set sum of money monthly. Do you understand how that works now?


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Better yet, put that money against your mortgage principal...


Today I went to Kohl's and bought 10 turtleneck jersey's. For $9 apiece. Croft and Barrows. Nice and warm 8 of them went into a space bag and into my spare closet. Walmart had a sale on undies. I bought 10/ 8 packs. All of them went into space bags. I also bought a pound of haddock at $12 a pound. Might be one of the last times I buy fresh haddock. It probably won't keep for 10 years. And I hate to think what it will cost in 10 years.

I remember buying fresh shrimp right from a guy side of the road for $1 for 5 pounds. Can't get it now. They can't shrimp this year. Haven't had fresh shrimp in years. Same as fresh oysters. Local supermarket got some for $17 a pound over Christmas. Had to throw alot out he said. So they didn't buy any more. That's why I stock up on staples, clothes ben linens, area rugs etc.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> Today I went to Kohl's and bought 10 turtleneck jersey's. For $9 apiece. Croft and Barrows. Nice and warm 8 of them went into a space bag and into my spare closet. Walmart had a sale on undies. I bought 10/ 8 packs. All of them went into space bags. I also bought a pound of haddock at $12 a pound. Might be one of the last times I buy fresh haddock. It probably won't keep for 10 years. And I hate to think what it will cost in 10 years.
> 
> I remember buying fresh shrimp right from a guy side of the road for $1 for 5 pounds. Can't get it now. They can't shrimp this year. Haven't had fresh shrimp in years. Same as fresh oysters. Local supermarket got some for $17 a pound over Christmas. Had to throw alot out he said. So they didn't buy any more. That's why I stock up on staples, clothes ben linens, area rugs etc.


Hey it's your money do what you want.


----------



## grandmann (Feb 4, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Better yet, put that money against your mortgage principal...


I think that is sound advise for anyone working. We took our over-time money and put on the principal. We got our home paid up in half of the time of the mortgage. At least we didn't have to worry about a mortgage when we retired.


----------



## soc (Apr 21, 2011)

It is unfortunate that social security is not clearly explained and taught. This should begin in elementary school and repeated many times before graduation. Social Security was never meant to be a pension or retirement plan. It was, and really is, a safety net to bridge the difference between a pension and the cost of living. You need to save for retirement either through a pension plan through your employer, or by an account established by yourself for that purpose.
So now many many folks are caught in the "inadequate" fixed income that is social security. 
It is never too late to begin saving for retirement. We have provided for our children's needs, education, and filled in shortfalls over the years, but we have foregone nice vacations and other expenses in favor of healthy retirement savings.
If you are not retired, start those accounts and set aside that money NOW before it is too late.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soc said:


> It is unfortunate that social security is not clearly explained and taught. This should begin in elementary school and repeated many times before graduation. Social Security was never meant to be a pension or retirement plan. It was, and really is, a safety net to bridge the difference between a pension and the cost of living. You need to save for retirement either through a pension plan through your employer, or by an account established by yourself for that purpose.
> So now many many folks are caught in the "inadequate" fixed income that is social security.
> It is never too late to begin saving for retirement. We have provided for our children's needs, education, and filled in shortfalls over the years, but we have foregone nice vacations and other expenses in favor of healthy retirement savings.
> If you are not retired, start those accounts and set aside that money NOW before it is too late.


If SS is not meant to support people when they retired businesses had better start paying people more money or, better yet, restore the pension system that was meant to supplement SS and savings.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soc said:


> It is unfortunate that social security is not clearly explained and taught. This should begin in elementary school and repeated many times before graduation. Social Security was never meant to be a pension or retirement plan. It was, and really is, a safety net to bridge the difference between a pension and the cost of living. You need to save for retirement either through a pension plan through your employer, or by an account established by yourself for that purpose.
> So now many many folks are caught in the "inadequate" fixed income that is social security.
> It is never too late to begin saving for retirement. We have provided for our children's needs, education, and filled in shortfalls over the years, but we have foregone nice vacations and other expenses in favor of healthy retirement savings.
> If you are not retired, start those accounts and set aside that money NOW before it is too late.


Great ideas, but doesn't work for everyone. Too many people these days are working two or three jobs to survive. Doesn't leave much for saving. I know there were also a lot of people that lost at least part of their retirement during the economic melt down we just went through. I lost about half of mine then. Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone went to college and got that good paying job, but will it every happen, probably not. Rick Santorum called our President a snob for wanting people to get a college education. What kind of attitude is that for a politician to have? The income for the middle class is continually on the decline, while the top 1% continues to go up. I know it is the same old story, but it is true.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> If SS is not meant to support people when they retired businesses had better start paying people more money or, better yet, restore the pension system that was meant to supplement SS and savings.


Maybe a CEO could take a 3 million dollar bonus instead of 5 million and pay his blue collar workers a better wage.


----------



## Grammy Toni (Apr 30, 2011)

Edith M said:


> It's a whole 'nother country, isn't it? I have had to rethink the meaning of want and need. Thanks to my son I have all I need. Now he too is retired and I am having to teach him the difference between want and need. I have only SS, no retirement as all our income went to raising 5 great kids. No regrets in that area. I like my life, even though I can see a lot of things I would love to change.


Ditto. I still do some work at 72 just so we can have some "extras". I will continue to work until I can't - or someone tells me that I need to stop for other's safety besides my own!


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Just those of you who don't live in New Jersey be glad you don't. Property taxes are through the roof. The COLA on SS does not keep up with inflation, and the basis on which COLA is calculated does not include items that are necessities and keep getting more expensive. 

Inflation is a tax on us old people and the longer we live the more it drives us on the road to poverty. 

And don't even get me started on the people who get SS without having had to pay in to it all their working lives like those of us who actually did work. Politicians have it made, and have the nerve to call SS and Medicare "entitlements". Bosh, we had funds deducted to entitle us to these benefits. Basically we paid premiums to ensure we had some pension funds and some medical insurance when we were no longer part of the work force.

I coupon madly at the grocery and watch for decent discounted day old items. We buy our clothes at rummage sales and flea markets, except for underwear. I watch for half price sales at discount stores for that and stock up.
It gets to be a game to see how much I save off the list price when I shop.

Today I went to Michaels and got next Christmas's cupcake cups and paper mini bread pans 70% off and some yarn I needed half price. 

We are lucky that the family we care about lives very near and we got our traveling out of our system when were were young and were earning decent money. We do route plans for chores to have the least mileage to save on gas. 

We are married 56 years (yesterday) and I am on my third car. DH got me a 1941 Chevy coupe we bought used and drove until it threw its rods in about 1965 or 1966. Then I used a small inheritance from my grandfather and got a brand new Plymouth Valiant 1965 model when the '66 came out for under $2,000 and drove that over 300,000 miles for almost 32 years until the frame was no longer stable. We then got a used Jeep Cherokee that now has over 200,000 miles on it. Fortunately DH learned to repair cars when he was a kid and has done all our oil changes, tire changes, and welded in metal as old metal rusted out, so our repair costs are at a minimum. 

It has been a challenge to live the way we want to on relatively low income. And I am not a high maintenance kind of person. Not into jewelry, hair dresser every week, mani pedis, etc.

But when we were young we could get "twofers" for Broadway shows, go into New York, eat out, and pay a baby sitter a few times a year without breaking the bank. Way beyond our budget now. Have you seen what they get for a nose bleed seat at a Broadway theater or a concert hall nowadays?

Enough of a rant. Getting to be bed time for this old bod.

Loving best wishes to all of you dears who are my KP friends for a happy and healthy New Year.


----------



## Nativelady (Oct 20, 2011)

Kaysped you are correct; the money taken out of SS was not invested with returned interest. It was just taken and nothing has been returned to SS. It is not a myth! It is reality.
I am dumbfounded that people from foreign countries can come over here and get SS. They have never put a dime into the system but benefit from our SS system. This is true. I have known several people that have done this- one from Italy and more from Russia. I could not believe this when I 1st heard it but there it is.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Nativelady said:


> Kaysped you are correct; the money taken out of SS was not invested with returned interest. It was just taken and nothing has been returned to SS. It is not a myth! It is reality.


Source?


----------



## mzmom1 (Mar 4, 2011)

janie48 said:


> I'm on pension and ss also, and was told retire, you'll make more money than what you make now. RIGHT!!! Another fairy tale!! janie48


As a retired 35½ year teacher I actually do "bring home" (net) more dollars on my retirement pension than I did when working. Add to that the lower costs of gasoline, 'work'-i.e. 'dress-up'-clothes, meals...How did I ever afford to work? I can barely make it now!


----------



## Emma544 (Jul 22, 2013)

yorkie1 said:


> I got my New Benefit Amount from SS this month. It says "Your SS benefets will increase by 1.5% in 2014 because of a rise in the cost of living.
> After the amount taken out for Medicare medical ins.I will get a $21.00 raise. (this always goes up after each rasise.) :-(
> That's going to go a long way on covering the cost of living raise, HUH!


Better than my 5 year pay freeze with additional insurance costs which takes my paycheck down more.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

missylam said:


> I was left with enough to last my lifetime, but friends and family started borrowing and of course only one has bothered to pay me back. Now I just have SS. I should have learned to just say no. They seem to never have enough to pay me anything.


I learned as a kid to never lend money you can't afford to give away, that way if they don't pay you back you won't be in trouble. It has served me well.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

chickkie said:


> I really don't understand the stockpiling of items before you retire. IF you save the money you will have it when you retire the same as you do now. I found it takes far less money to live on than we thought it would since we don't have to use the car every day.


Inflation.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

NJG said:


> Great ideas, but doesn't work for everyone. Too many people these days are working two or three jobs to survive. Doesn't leave much for saving. I know there were also a lot of people that lost at least part of their retirement during the economic melt down we just went through. I lost about half of mine then. Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone went to college and got that good paying job, but will it every happen, probably not. Rick Santorum called our President a snob for wanting people to get a college education. What kind of attitude is that for a politician to have? The income for the middle class is continually on the decline, while the top 1% continues to go up. I know it is the same old story, but it is true.


Totally agree! I know many people who are struggling with just the basics and there is no way they can put money into a pension!


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

lneighbors3 said:


> This is the very reason we are retiring to Ecuador next year. Cost of living is about half of what it is in the US. We will both be on SS, will have some IRA and 401K money for back-up. Plus the climate means no heating or cooling bills.
> 
> Lynne


Sounds great!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Nativelady said:


> Kaysped you are correct; the money taken out of SS was not invested with returned interest. It was just taken and nothing has been returned to SS. It is not a myth! It is reality.
> I am dumbfounded that people from foreign countries can come over here and get SS. They have never put a dime into the system but benefit from our SS system. This is true. I have known several people that have done this- one from Italy and more from Russia. I could not believe this when I 1st heard it but there it is.


As the wife of Serbian-born man I find your comment offensive, to say the least. My husband has worked here and paid into the system for almost twenty years. Do you want to strip him of his benefits just because he has chosen not to become a citizen?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Maybe a CEO could take a 3 million dollar bonus instead of 5 million and pay his blue collar workers a better wage.


Not until they start getting the message from the people, such as on this site, who understand the struggle the message needs to be that business as usual is not good enough for our children, our nephews, our neighbors...


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

grammyv said:


> We are experiencing "fixed income". But, we have found there are small odd jobs that many will not do: cleaning our church, baby/child care, "fix it" projects, mending, ironing, etc. that give us "discretionary income" for yarn, books, treats for the GK. Just a thought.
> 
> Keep on knitting.


This is what I discovered too, I became a pet sitter ten years ago. I suspect the only thing about "fixed income" that is lacking is no one ever fixes it for us, we fix it ourselves :~).


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

ultrahiggs said:


> I dont know what its like in the US, but from what you say is that your pension doesnt go up with the cost of living, is that right ? here in the UK pensioners get an annual increase each year -- not a lot but it does go up, but its not too great here either


It used to go up with the cost of living. Then the govt. decided the retired folks got too much money (they don't). Then a rotten formula was invented to give a pittance.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

BTW, I like to read all posts from around the world.

I use white vinegar in the rinse for my hand washables. I think it's on the cheap side.


----------



## grandmann (Feb 4, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> This is what I discovered too, I became a pet sitter ten years ago. I suspect the only thing about "fixed income" that is lacking is no one ever fixes it for us, we fix it ourselves :~).


That is great that you can still work.

I know of a woman who gets a job & shortly later is looking for work again. Her meds are so expensive that she has to work even though she is on SS. Her last job was helping out the elderly with light housecleaning. This woman I really don't know what's wrong with her but she can fall asleep on a dime. I really can't see her working at all. She keeps looking because she needs the money.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

ultrahiggs said:


> Tell me, coming from the UK, what is 401k everybody is talking about


Lots more pages so don't know if anyone answered. It's an account you open to save for retirement. There are several kinds. Many like to put away pre tax dollars. Then when you are older you are taxed when you draw the money. The 401k account belongs to you. It's private money as opposed to a company pension.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> Maybe a CEO could take a 3 million dollar bonus instead of 5 million and pay his blue collar workers a better wage.


Maybe employees could apply themselves, obtain better skills and/or education along with a can-do attitude thereby providing themselves the ability to earn higher wages and the possibility of unlimited salaries or become the CEO or higher management or whatever the heck they chose to become. After all, this is America and the land of unlimited opportunities.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> This is what I discovered too, I became a pet sitter ten years ago. I suspect the only thing about "fixed income" that is lacking is no one ever fixes it for us, we fix it ourselves :~).


 :thumbup: I agree and will repeat, SS was never meant and has always been said not to be relied upon as the only source of income for anyone. It was established as a supplemental, partial funding source for those retired at an established age and also for those permanently disabled.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

eahite said:


> Oh my dears...I hear all of you. This year has been tough in so many ways, financially, health wise and pride wise as well. Perhaps at retirement age one isn't supposed to hang on to their pride. I just broke a front tooth, have no dental insurance (can,t afford it) and was very upfront with the dentist about my situation. I will pay for everything a bit at a time every month until paid off. Didn't beg or plead, they were kind and understanding but my pride took a beating any way. I am no "Downton Abbey" dowager but do believe in dignity. Ah well, the choice between dignity and a gaping black hole in the front of my mouth wasn't as difficult to make as I thought it would be.


Could a univ. dental school do it for cheap?


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Why is it that people always feel that what they think is "nice" and that the person they disagree with is not "nice"?
> We all have a right to state our opinions here.


I think the other person is still grieving the loss of a child.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> BTW, I like to read all posts from around the world.
> 
> I use white vinegar in the rinse for my hand washables. I think it's on the cheap side.


Uh huh, somewhere around here is a list and a list and another list of all the things that white vinegar is simply perfect for or at. 
I keep meaning to expand my uses ...


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

I did that once for my internet for a year, woo-hoo. And I agree with you about putting our vote where it counts.



NJG said:


> One thing I found out, quite by accident, was that the city of Cedar Rapids gives a discount to seniors on their water bill according to their income. I had to fill out a paper, reporting my income and the discount comes out to be almost half. I was just on their web site and say it there. Don't know if other places do that, but it never hurts to ask. As far as things like cable, remember the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I complained once about the promotion to get new customers. I said they get the great deal and I am the loyal customer for the last 15 years and I get nothing. They did finally give me a small discount for a year.
> It is snowing again here today. Glad I am on that fixed income and can stay home.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> As the wife of Serbian-born man I find your comment offensive, to say the least. My husband has worked here and paid into the system for almost twenty years. Do you want to strip him of his benefits just because he has chosen not to become a citizen?





Nativelady said:


> I am dumbfounded that people from foreign countries can come over here and get SS. They have never put a dime into the system but benefit from our SS system. This is true. I have known several people that have done this- one from Italy and more from Russia. I could not believe this when I 1st heard it but there it is.


I find your comment ridiculous and without merit at best.

Nativelady _only_ mentioned those who *never contributed* into SS yet benefit from the program and she did not mention citizenship status only that she was discussing foreign born recipients of the USA system. I believe her implication was if receiving benefits from the American taxpayers why would they if not American citizens or contributors? Complete opposite facts to your comparison.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

leoanne said:


> By the way, our town gives a discount to seniors on water bill. 25 dollars off of a 350 bill. Not much of a discount. I also could get 250 off of a 5000 property tax bill if I laid out all my financial info for the town hall. Really don't want my neighbors knowing everything about me. ( They work at the town hall).


Omg, my water bill in upstate NY is about $34 for 3 months. It's just me, in a house. We have plenty of water where to get it from.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Nativelady wrote:
I am dumbfounded that people from foreign countries can come over here and get SS. They have never put a dime into the system but benefit from our SS system. This is true. I have known several people that have done this- one from Italy and more from Russia. I could not believe this when I 1st heard it but there it is.



They are called refugees. They lost everything escaping from a political situation that was life threatening. Do you want those who are senior citizens to develop the skills and language to make a living here at an age when everyone else is retiring?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

mzmom1 said:


> As a retired 35½ year teacher I actually do "bring home" (net) more dollars on my retirement pension than I did when working. Add to that the lower costs of gasoline, 'work'-i.e. 'dress-up'-clothes, meals...How did I ever afford to work? I can barely make it now!


Great post mzmom!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Maybe employees could apply themselves, obtain better skills and/or education along with a can-do attitude thereby providing themselves the ability to earn higher wages and the possibility of unlimited salaries or become the CEO or higher management or whatever the heck they chose to become. After all, this is America and the land of unlimited opportunities.


Yes, we need a system that has millions of CEOs and no floor workers, don't we? 
After all, the discussion IS about being on a fixed income. Initially, the plan was that there would be Social Security, pensions and savings. 
Those wonderful people in Congress who like to cater to the rich and business people negated the barriers to stealing pension funds from workers decades ago. Sears has done it, Bain Capital has done it several times. It is a great way to put people who worked all of their lives, trusting their employers to keep promises, into poverty. 
It is the reason that eventually there will be some form of uprising. The American people are not stupid, they are patient, but not THAT patient. 
When they get tired of the play they will act.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

FYI,, I just signed up with Consumer Cellular. You setup your plan how you want. Separate minutes for voice, messages and data. I got the minimum data since I use my Wifi. Just use the data for maps when out driving. It costs me $24/month. I think AARP members get a discount. I cut my landline and ported the number. You can change your plan easy if you need to. And they are based in the US with native English. Btw, their service runs on AT&T if that is what you like.


----------



## blessedinMO (Mar 9, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> FYI,, I just signed up with Consumer Cellular. You setup your plan how you want. Separate minutes for voice, messages and data. I got the minimum data since I use my Wifi. Just use the data for maps when out driving. It costs me $24/month. I think AARP members get a discount. I cut my landline and ported the number. You can change your plan easy if you need to. And they are based in the US with native English. Btw, their service runs on AT&T if that is what you like.


I was with CC for 4 years when I lived in CA. They are the best and the cheapest! :thumbup: If anything ever happened to your phone, they would replace by FedEx free of charge as well.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Are they the foods that radio host George Noory talked about? I always wondered about the flavor. Thanks for your info.



misssusan644 said:


> I'm typing on a tiny cell phone with a mini stylus but 3rd time's gonna work!
> 
> One way to save money is to cook with dehydrated/freeze dried foods. If there are any LDS ladies on this forum we could exchange recipes.
> 
> ...


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

misellen said:


> What abatements?


We get them in NYS, too. STAR and enhanced STAR deducted from our expensive property taxes.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

babsbarb said:


> Here's something for seniors to think about. Reverse Mortgages. I understand the fees on this can be high, but can be added on to the payback. Just something to consider if you are having a difficult time making ends meet on your current income.


I'm thinking that over. There are things to be wary of. Too long to explain here. The internet has the info.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Why is it that people always feel that what they think is "nice" and that the person they disagree with is not "nice"?
> We all have a right to state our opinions here.


It is not nice to attack another's religious or political beliefs. Those that do evidently are threatened by them. There is enough grief being expressed on this thread to real problems. If one person's solution or coping mechanism doesn't work for you, move on. Don't add to that person's problems. Personally, I find prayer useful too.


----------



## Hannelore (Oct 26, 2011)

I am also on a fixed income. As I am not 65 yet I get about $200 less than a pensioner. At the moment I am able to cope with what I am getting, but I learned from my parents not to buy anything you can't pay cash for. The only extra money I make is from selling some of my craft items. I don't have much in the way of luxuries but enjoy what I do have.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

My husband and I laid the best plans. He died suddenly at 43. The kids were little. I could never earn what he did. Your advice is good, but not everyone can do it.



soc said:


> It is unfortunate that social security is not clearly explained
> and taught. This should begin in elementary school and repeated many times before graduation. Social Security was never meant to be a pension or retirement plan. It was, and really is, a safety net to bridge the difference between a pension and the cost of living. You need to save for retirement either through a pension plan through your employer, or by an account established by yourself for that purpose.
> So now many many folks are caught in the "inadequate" fixed income that is social security.
> It is never too late to begin saving for retirement. We have provided for our children's needs, education, and filled in shortfalls over the years, but we have foregone nice vacations and other expenses in favor of healthy retirement savings.
> If you are not retired, start those accounts and set aside that money NOW before it is too late.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> It is not nice to attack another's religious or political beliefs. Those that do evidently are threatened by them. There is enough grief being expressed on this thread to real problems. If one person's solution or coping mechanism doesn't work for you, move on. Don't add to that person's problems. Personally, I find prayer useful too.


Nobody "attacked" anything. Using outrageous language to define a discussion isn't "nice".


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

Food storage is something that I do, and I have a dehydrator. I have never, however dehydrated the items that musssusan644 mentioned. I'd be interested in learning if she dried them herself or purchased them.


----------



## Hannelore (Oct 26, 2011)

Personally said:


> I agree. I found prayer very helpful when my husband died, but I also thank God when something good happens as well.


----------



## ELareau (Nov 4, 2012)

ultrahiggs said:


> Tell me, coming from the UK, what is 401k everybody is talking about


Not sure if anyone else has answered, but in the U.S. a 401k is a defined-contribution pension plan. What that means is that an employer pays into a contract a set contribution for each employee (usually a % of that employee's income). This has decreased an employer's expenses in providing retirement benefits. the "401k" refers to the section of the tax code that covers pension.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Hannelore said:


> I agree. I found prayer very helpful when my husband died, but I also thank God when something good happens as well.


Many of us find prayer useful, most of us respect others mentions of prayers. However, for someone to come into a thread and chide others for not dealing with financial matters through prayer was. perhaps, a bit insensitive. Sometimes, prayer as a solution for all that is wrong in the world strikes people in a hurtful way, that's all.


----------



## blessedinMO (Mar 9, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> My husband and I laid the best plans. He died suddenly at 43. The kids were little. I could never earn what he did. Your advice is good, but not everyone can do it.


So sorry ute. I basically went the same way. Raising the kids and being the breadwinner was a killer.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> Food storage is something that I do, and I have a dehydrator. I have never, however dehydrated the items that musssusan644 mentioned. I'd be interested in learning if she dried them herself or purchased them.


It seems to me that turning shortening and butter into powder could be a full time job. 
I have forgotten the other item mentioned. I did see it on Amazon, though.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

blessedinMO said:


> So sorry ute. I basically went the same way. Raising the kids and being the breadwinner was a killer.


Oh, I'm sorry to you, too. You know, each time I see your liitle dog's face, I smile.


----------



## blessedinMO (Mar 9, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Oh, I'm sorry to you, too. You know, each time I see your liitle dog's face, I smile.


Thanks. She is just wonderful..going on 15 now, so I cherish every moment we have together.


----------



## desertbarefoot (Jun 23, 2013)

flhusker, when my father died, my mother ws able to get his SS istead of hers. Of course you can't keep both incomes but the living spouse can have the larger of the two. Just FYI.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> It is not nice to attack another's religious or political beliefs. Those that do evidently are threatened by them. There is enough grief being expressed on this thread to real problems. If one person's solution or coping mechanism doesn't work for you, move on. Don't add to that person's problems. Personally, I find prayer useful too.


Hmmm, I will keep this short. Reading in FF today I saw where you did put down others political beliefs. So, I guess the old saying applies "Practice what you preach". Or if you can't say anything nice then don't say it .


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

blessedinMO said:


> Thanks. She is just wonderful..going on 15 now, so I cherish every moment we have together.


Awwww, she's so cute. I thought she's a girl, but didn't say in case a boy. :lol:


----------



## sumnerusa (Nov 9, 2011)

Scruffy's Mum said:


> And when you think, most people get paid either every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, with 52 weeks in a year there are actually 13 x 4 week (months) - does that make sense? Soc Sec is only 12 times a year. I know what I'm trying to say - but not sure I said it very well.


I know exactly what you mean. You are being shorted a month. You should be getting 13 checks a year or have it figured by the day. Each month would be different according to the number of days in that month. Right?


----------



## Dreamweaver (Feb 1, 2011)

The problem with a fixed income is that the expenses are not fixed. Thank goodness we do not take a lot of medications, I can see why some have to choose between eating and medication.... Our house Is paid for, but repairs are going to be needed from time to time. Our savings are not large and will eventually be eaten up by taxes and such...... I sure don't want to be a burden to my children...... 

It is hard to lower your standard of living, but something that is going to be necessary. I have no idea what will happen when one of us is gone, as we need BOTH SS to make ends meet..... 

I would not really like giving up my style to share a home with another, but would... If it was possible to FIND a roommate..... Maybe a boarder in one room... Only time will tell. 

If things continue the way they are going right now, this country is going to see a large number of new welfare participants....


----------



## CamillaDesertMouse (Mar 19, 2011)

We definitely KNOW what a "fixed" income means .. it will basically stay the same for the rest of our retirement! 
Fixed .. stays put.

Hubby retired about 3 years ago and I just got my retirement this past May 2013 which helped a little ..
Even though our home and car are paid for .. we have only Medicare and a small supplement policy for hubby and NO insurance for me yet.

Most of our monthly retirement income goes to medical for me.

It is a bit challenging and we have learned to live with it fairly well.

Restaurants we do mostly carry out for ONE meal and split it as most restaurants give huge portions. We shop with coupons and sale ads from our local paper.

We make as few trips to shop as necessary to save on gas.

Challenging you bet but we still feel blessed working together on everything we do and decide.

We also pray for Gods help and He is always there for us.

Hugs and God Bless us retirees.


----------



## Abi_marsden (Aug 5, 2012)

This is going to be last post on this subject chickie please do us all a favour read posts then act like a grown up.if you can't please do the world a favour and don't say a word it's not hard to do.i don't see why me answering a question is a rant ,it's a answer but I guess you couldn't realise that.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Dreamweaver said:


> The problem with a fixed income is that the expenses are not fixed. Thank goodness we do not take a lot of medications, I can see why some have to choose between eating and medication.... Our house Is paid for, but repairs are going to be needed from time to time. Our savings are not large and will eventually be eaten up by taxes and such...... I sure don't want to be a burden to my children......
> 
> It is hard to lower your standard of living, but something that is going to be necessary. I have no idea what will happen when one of us is gone, as we need BOTH SS to make ends meet.....
> 
> ...


I guess what I don't understand is why people would wait until it is necessary to share their house with others. If a person or couple has extra space and is beginning to feel the pinch why not start then to either consider selling or renting out some space? People have talked about starting second careers as pet sitters and such. If that is not an option for folks, but, they have a nice place with extra rooms why not leisurely seek a person or persons to rent to?


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

I expressed my religious view on this thread, but did not challenge yours. I expressed my political view to others of similar views on another thread, but did not challenge yours. I know that it is a fine distinction, but expressing your values is not a call for an attack. If my statement that I use prayer is a problem for you, you should move on. It isn't your business, it's mine.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

CamillaDesertMouse said:


> We definitely KNOW what a "fixed" income means .. it will basically stay the same for the rest of our retirement!
> Fixed .. stays put.
> 
> Hubby retired about 3 years ago and I just got my retirement this past May 2013 which helped a little ..
> ...


I love your post. The older we get we find that we don't really need all of the extras that we had to have in our younger years.
I am a very frugal person, but not to the point of being a cheapskate. I buy meat in bulk from a local farmer and free range chickens as well. I divide the chops, steaks, roasts and ground round into smaller portions and use the Food Saver to vacuum seal the bags.
I have dried fruits in my dehydrator and vacuum seal them as well. I grow my own veggies and herbs and freeze them as well and dry the herbs.
I always shop with coupons and use them when the items go on sale. I can save up to 37% on my groceries that way.
I never spend my change. It goes into a huge jar. I cashed it once when it was half full and had $500 in it. Those pennies, nickels,quarters and dimes add up!
My son made some laundry soap for us (10 gallons). I won't have to buy that for a long time.
My husband is still working, but I am getting ready for when he does retire. 
There ar a lot of ways to save and eliminate needless spending for when the fixed income falls upon us.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> I expressed my religious view on this thread, but did not challenge yours. I expressed my political view to others of similar views on another thread, but did not challenge yours. I know that it is a fine distinction, but expressing your values is not a call for an attack. If my statement that I use prayer is a problem for you, you should move on. It isn't your business, it's mine.


Who are you talking to, KC?


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Who are you talking to, KC?


You.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> You.


I said nothing about your religioius views, as I believe that everyone is entitled to post them.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Yes, we need a system that has millions of CEOs and no floor workers, don't we?
> After all, the discussion IS about being on a fixed income. Initially, the plan was that there would be Social Security, pensions and savings.
> Those wonderful people in Congress who like to cater to the rich and business people negated the barriers to stealing pension funds from workers decades ago. Sears has done it, Bain Capital has done it several times. It is a great way to put people who worked all of their lives, trusting their employers to keep promises, into poverty.
> It is the reason that eventually there will be some form of uprising. The American people are not stupid, they are patient, but not THAT patient.
> When they get tired of the play they will act.


You are so right Jelun2.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

blessedinMO said:


> So sorry ute. I basically went the same way. Raising the kids and being the breadwinner was a killer.


I also have been on my own for 43 years. My husband died in a car accident in 1970 when I was pregnant and had a 2 year old. I feel very fortunate that they received survivors benefits, were both able to go to college and now are two of the greatest women I know. I am very proud of them and they have the utmost respect for me and people in general. I had great family support, but was still alone to do it all. Just not having some one to share the responsibility with and being able to discuss every day things with was very hard.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

desertbarefoot said:


> flhusker, when my father died, my mother ws able to get his SS istead of hers. Of course you can't keep both incomes but the living spouse can have the larger of the two. Just FYI.


I retired on my husbands when I was 65 and when I turn 70, I will switch to my own as it will be more. Age 70 is the last opportunity for me to do that. I could do it now, but want to get the most that I can. My husband died when he was 29 so I have a lot more working years than he did.


----------



## cydneyjo (Aug 5, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> And there you are, everywhere I look on the website...ads for Roku!


What is ROKU?


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

cydneyjo said:


> What is ROKU?


It is a small box that you attach to your TV using an HDMI cable. It allows you to access various channels depending on which model you have. For instance, you have access to things like Netflix (but you must have a Netflix account), Amazon, HuluPlus, various movie channels, news channels, TV programs. I have a lower-priced model that only gets 4 or 5 things, but only use it for Netflix and Amazon, so that's enough for me.


----------



## cydneyjo (Aug 5, 2011)

Do you have to pay a monthly fee for it?


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

cydneyjo said:


> Do you have to pay a monthly fee for it?


Not for the Roku itself. But for some of the channels, yes. For instance, Netflix is $7.95/mo for unlimited free movies & TV--their "pay" movies/TV aren't included. Same for HuluPlus and some others. But there is also plenty of free stuff.

BTW, I forgot to mention that you also need to have a wireless router for Roku to work.


----------



## christine 47 (Oct 7, 2011)

Things are tough in the UK at the moment but we seem to be in a better position here than in the USA. There have been many discussions on here about your health care and our NHS, which isn't perfect, but it does give us security, no one here pays for any medical treatment over 60. No TV licence fee for over 75's. A couple of years ago a scheme was introduced where anyone over 70 is entitled to free loft and cavity wall insulation. Winter fuel allowance £100 per pensioner, £300 for anyone over 80, to help with the cost of heating. Free Bus travel all over the UK and on certain lines in the West Midlands we get free rail travel. Pensioners with low savings can apply for Pensioners Credit to help with rent and community charges. 
My husband was self employed and when he reached 60 we decided he would gradually wind down, I worked part time. We wanted to see how we would manage on reduced money. He stopped working for himself and obtained a part time job and we found that we could manage. My husband retired at 65 after working 50 years and had paid into 3 private pension schemes. One was good and the other 2 were ok but we decided to draw the one in a lump sum, which we used to replace the central heating boiler and the double glazed doors and windows. One of the others was only a small amount each week so we decided to have this paid annually in December, pays for all of Christmas, presents and we treat ourselves to theatre tickets throughout the year. I also have a private pension paid monthly, which we "save" and it gets used for holidays. We had a wholesale card and we bought a quantity of non perishables like washing powder, cleaning products etc. While I was working I would go into a supermarket and just shop. I had no idea how much individual items cost. Since retirement I now shop better. We only had a Tesco supermarket but now we have an Aldi and by shopping mainly there we have cut our shopping bill considerably. We shop on Thursdays and then go for a pub lunch afterwards. We are logged onto various brewery sites and we get discount vouchers, something we never did before, and we eat out on the best offers. We are in fact better off now than when we were working part time. I was surprised that some of you still have mortgages. All mortgages have to be completed by retirement age in the UK, we were 52 and 56 when ours finished.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

Christine47, sounds great! Here, though, there would be an uproar about so much government involvement. :-( Some of what you detail is great. As for mortgages, there is no law regarding when you have to pay your mortgage off--I think that it is that way for you _because_ of your government's involvement in order to insure a more independent old age. And we don't pay a TV tax--if I understand it correctly, you have one due to the fact that you have the BBC, a government-run entity and the tax helps fund it?


----------



## Dot-I (Jun 25, 2011)

This is exactly why so many senior citizens 'live' together and not get married. We can't afford to get married and living alone is just too lonesome and can be dangerous. So one household expense is shared and makes good sense to me.


----------



## Lostie (May 2, 2013)

sumpleby said:


> Christine47, sounds great! Here, though, there would be an uproar about so much government involvement. :-( Some of what you detail is great. As for mortgages, there is no law regarding when you have to pay your mortgage off--I think that it is that way for you _because_ of your government's involvement in order to insure a more independent old age. And we don't pay a TV tax--if I understand it correctly, you have one due to the fact that you have the BBC, a government-run entity and the tax helps fund it?


Yes, it does seem that things are better here. I won't qualify for any benefits for some time as I had to take an unplanned early medical retirement. On the matter of the BBC, it is run independently from the government - they can have a bit of a bias in places, but every government says they are against the government, so they must be reasonablish. I have a personal love of the BBC - no adverts yayy

:thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> I'm thinking that over. There are things to be wary of. Too long to explain here. The internet has the info.


I would suggest you stay away from reverse mortgages and look at financing your debt with a 2nd mortgage, equity line (often either with deductible interest) or a loan instead.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

ELareau said:


> Not sure if anyone else has answered, but in the U.S. a 401k is a defined-contribution pension plan. What that means is that an employer pays into a contract a set contribution for each employee (usually a % of that employee's income). This has decreased an employer's expenses in providing retirement benefits. the "401k" refers to the section of the tax code that covers pension.


I provided an accurate answer prior, but I'm afraid your description posted here is not accurate.


----------



## RobbiD (Nov 13, 2012)

Bunbun said:


> I just got my SS notice of my raise for '14. a whopping $4. Great, now I can buy an extra pound of hamburger!!!
> Just read your AAA and AARP magazines, they don't have a clue what "fixed income" means as they tout all those Wonderful travel pkgs. Certainly no member of our Govn't has any idea of what the average person has to cope with. If they had to live on our salaries, pensions, whatever, they couldn't do it>


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> I expressed my religious view on this thread, but did not challenge yours. I expressed my political view to others of similar views on another thread, but did not challenge yours. I know that it is a fine distinction, but expressing your values is not a call for an attack. If my statement that I use prayer is a problem for you, you should move on. It isn't your business, it's mine.


She doesn't practice what she preaches nor keeps snide remarks to herself. She posts mostly always to attack and criticize. Nothing more needs to be said but we can simply ignore and move on as we do.


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Are they the foods that radio host George Noory talked about? I always wondered about the flavor. Thanks for your info.


Probably, I've not heard him. The flavor is good. These foods are meant for emergency use and the reason to incorporate them in a non-disaster setting is so that if/when you must use them you are comfortable doing so.

When disaster strikes, a hot meal is preferable to an SOS bar, even though it might not taste exactly like a meal made from fresh ingredients.

In the sporting goods dept at Walmart you can buy Mountain House pouches of freeze dried foods. Ice cream! Spaghetti, breakfast combos. Fun for

camping. A bit high in sodium but as a treat, not bad.

I think the gov't uses Mountain House when responding to disasters Not sure what the Red Cross uses. Does anyone know?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Dreamweaver said:


> If things continue the way they are going right now, this country is going to see a large number of new welfare participants....


Agreed - the ranks have already doubled over the course of the past four years with no improved economy or job growth in sight with greater costs for most things and services.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

ELareau said:


> Not sure if anyone else has answered, but in the U.S. a 401k is a defined-contribution pension plan. What that means is that an employer pays into a contract a set contribution for each employee (usually a % of that employee's income). This has decreased an employer's expenses in providing retirement benefits. the "401k" refers to the section of the tax code that covers pension.


Are you sure about that. Each employee pays what they want to or can afford. Then the company matches that with a set % or not as they want to.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

sumnerusa said:


> I know exactly what you mean. You are being shorted a month. You should be getting 13 checks a year or have it figured by the day. Each month would be different according to the number of days in that month. Right?


Nobody is being shorted anything, perhaps you missed someone explaining this earlier. 
The checks are based on an annual income...divided by 12. 
Someone who receives checks every two weeks, the same thing... annual income divided to pay that amount in 26 increments.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Hey it's your money do what you want.


Forgot to add that I bought 5 pairs of slippers at Walmart too.

Why would I wait until I have half the income to pay twice the price for something?

For your information I am paying off my mortgage with extra cash every month. My mortgage is $526 a month and that includes my taxes. My condo is a noose around my neck. Towels, slippers, turtlenecks ( well maybe the turtlenecks) TP, paper towels, dish soap, toothpaste, bar soap, laundry detergent, trash bags are not.


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> Food storage is something that I do, and I have a dehydrator. I have never, however dehydrated the items that musssusan644 mentioned. I'd be interested in learning if she dried them herself or purchased them.


No, I purchase commercially dried foods. They have oxygen absorbers added and are sealed 
in cans. I would not attempt that myself for long term storage.

If I had a family and there was a LDS cannery nearby and there was a justifiable need, I might do it. But living by myself, it doesn't make sense to reinvent the wheel.

I can buy the items already packaged cheaper than I could do it myself


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Yes, we need a system that has millions of CEOs and no floor workers, don't we?
> After all, the discussion IS about being on a fixed income. Initially, the plan was that there would be Social Security, pensions and savings.
> Those wonderful people in Congress who like to cater to the rich and business people negated the barriers to stealing pension funds from workers decades ago. Sears has done it, Bain Capital has done it several times. It is a great way to put people who worked all of their lives, trusting their employers to keep promises, into poverty.
> It is the reason that eventually there will be some form of uprising. The American people are not stupid, they are patient, but not THAT patient.
> When they get tired of the play they will act.


The United States does not have the system you describe. Fixed income is not what you described either. How many people actually do *their* part by applying _themselves_ and gain skills to qualify them for good compensation. More importantly, how many do regularly contribute to "savings" since you suggested that to be part of the 'initial' plan?

If folks *did* contribute to their savings (Americans are notorious for NOT saving as compared to other citizens around the world yet the USA remains one of the wealthiest nations), SS would not be thought of as "fixed income" but as a supplemental income stream from retirement savings and investments which is the proper definition as I stated prior. If one did not save that is not the fault of any business owner, employer or CEO. The responsibility is *always* upon ones self, never another. In America, for those who are not able to support ones self, assistance is always available and in place because Americans are the most generous people on the planet.

SS was _always_ meant as a supplemental or only a 'portion' of a person's retirement income and not meant to be relied upon nor not even initially permanent.

Other than criminals, like Bernie Madoff, who stole people's INVESTED savings (people who were interested in investing their savings to produce MORE fixed income), no one is stealing pensions. Even as Congress attempted last week to decrease military members pensions, they have already amended their legislative mistake.

Bain Capital is a venture capital business that takes huge risks to keep businesses afloat; they are not in the business of stealing pensions either and without them, more folks would have zero income instead of the high success rate of Bain to keep companies afloat and keeping people working WITH compensation.


----------



## christine 47 (Oct 7, 2011)

Lostie said:


> Yes, it does seem that things are better here. I won't qualify for any benefits for some time as I had to take an unplanned early medical retirement. On the matter of the BBC, it is run independently from the government - they can have a bit of a bias in places, but every government says they are against the government, so they must be reasonablish. I have a personal love of the BBC - no adverts yayy
> 
> :thumbup:


I don't have a problem with paying my TV Licence, it's good value for money when you consider the programmes we get, costume dramas like Downton Abbey cost a lot of money to make and the cost isn't off set by advertising, they have to recoup some of the cost by selling them to other countries.


----------



## rasputin (Apr 21, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Are there any of you out there that never really thought about what a "fixed" income really means? When I worked, I used to hear the expression "fixed" income a lot. I used to think that my income was fixed because I was salaried and made x number of dollars a month. It took retirement and setting up a budget to really get what a fixed income really is. When I worked, any overtime I worked was "extra" income and the bonus at the end of the year was "extra" income, plus I would get a merit raise every year so my income would go up. Now that I am retired and on social security and a pension I finally realize what "fixed" actually means. My pension is fixed at the same amount every month, every year for the rest of my life. Sometimes Social Security will go up a few dollars, but basically it is the same every month, every year for the rest of my life. When any company like Direct TV or Comcast try to raise what I am paying for their service, I call them immediately to get my cost back down. Where do they think that extra money for the increased amount on the bill is going to come from? My income does not increase and will be the same the rest of my life. I know there are a lot of you that are on fixed incomes, too. I just wonder how many were ignorant like me as to what that really meant.


when I stopped getting my paycheck reality set in really fast! I panicked for a day or two, but then got over it...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

misssusan644 said:


> No, I purchase commercially dried foods. They have oxygen absorbers added and are sealed
> in cans. I would not attempt that myself for long term storage.
> 
> If I had a family and there was a LDS cannery nearby and there was a justifiable need, I might do it. But living by myself, it doesn't make sense to reinvent the wheel.
> ...


Could we have a jargon moment? What do you mean by LDS?


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Could we have a jargon moment? What do you mean by LDS?


Latter Day Saints. Mormons. I am not a member of that denomination.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

misssusan644 said:


> Latter Day Saints. Mormons. I am not a member of that denomination.


LOL, that was where my brain took me. It just didn't fit with the reconstituted food for me.


----------



## LilgirlCA (Jan 22, 2011)

cinjean48 said:


> I live in Fl and am medically disabled. I receive ss disability and was also getting food stamps to help out My SS was increased by $14 last month and guess what? Right, they discontinued my food stamps because I make to much money. Where in the world do they think $925 is to much money. I bet they don't have to try and live on that.


Check with your senior center - many receive day old bread and fruits and vegetables to distribute to members. See if yours does. also check with local food banks to see what their requirements are.

You have my sympathies trying to live on SSI disability or even Social Security retirement amounts - many don't even cover the rent


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

LilgirlCA said:


> Check with your senior center - many receive day old bread and fruits and vegetables to distribute to members. See if yours does. also check with local food banks to see what their requirements are.
> 
> You have my sympathies trying to live on SSI disability or even Social Security retirement amounts - many don't even cover the rent


And, of course, FreeCycle...good for both picking things up and giving things away without having to haul them away.

www.freecycle.org


----------



## rasputin (Apr 21, 2013)

Irish knitter said:


> I had no "clue" what a "fixed income" was until I lost my job. I gave money away freely to whom ever needed it; (even my customers who needed milk for their children) I would tell them "I have it; you need it".....NOW...it is another story! I am knitting out of my stash; cannot afford to drive my car; cannot afford a lot of things that I TOOK FOR GRANTED....this has really opened my eyes! I am on SS permanently because of medical injuries. I had no clue about meds costing so much!!! And when there are 5 weeks in a month!!!
> I have come to a rude awakening.....so if I am crabby or rude will you just pm me and let me know...please??!! Maybe I do not know how I sound as some days I get overwhelmed with just surviving.
> I had the idea that I was "set" for retirement as I had $ 200,000.00 set aside....guess what? My husband gambled it away on the stock market....all he had to do was divert everything into our "medical account" and withdraw it all!!!!


you are not being crabby...and if you were you have a right to vent...you poor thing. My husband never wanted to retire . he has an electrical contracting business and said he was gonna work until he died! Well, everything was going along fine until #1 we buried our son, #2 my husband health is not good. #3 he can hardly do anything anymore. He planned on sitting at the desk getting the work for my son and other employees but that didn't work out. And then to put the nail in the coffin, the down turn in 2008 just about closed us up. I guess plans never work out the way we want. We all have a right to vent.


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> LOL, that was where my brain took me. It just didn't fit with the reconstituted food for me.


Members are advised to have a year's worth of food for each family member. It's a major undertaking and there are many websites devoted to helping families achieve that goal.

I think we can all benefit from their advice. I know I have.


----------



## Tennessee.Gal (Mar 11, 2012)

Evie RM said:


> Are there any of you out there that never really thought about what a "fixed" income really means? When I worked, I used to hear the expression "fixed" income a lot. I used to think that my income was fixed because I was salaried and made x number of dollars a month. It took retirement and setting up a budget to really get what a fixed income really is. When I worked, any overtime I worked was "extra" income and the bonus at the end of the year was "extra" income, plus I would get a merit raise every year so my income would go up. Now that I am retired and on social security and a pension I finally realize what "fixed" actually means. My pension is fixed at the same amount every month, every year for the rest of my life. Sometimes Social Security will go up a few dollars, but basically it is the same every month, every year for the rest of my life. When any company like Direct TV or Comcast try to raise what I am paying for their service, I call them immediately to get my cost back down. Where do they think that extra money for the increased amount on the bill is going to come from? My income does not increase and will be the same the rest of my life. I know there are a lot of you that are on fixed incomes, too. I just wonder how many were ignorant like me as to what that really meant.


I got educated fast when my father moved to assisted living and I took over his financial management. Just today I got a letter that (once again) rates are going up but Dad's income remains the same. Medicare doesn't pay a dime toward assisted living.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Tennessee.Gal said:


> I got educated fast when my father moved to assisted living and I took over his financial management. Just today I got a letter that (once again) rates are going up but Dad's income remains the same. Medicare doesn't pay a dime toward assisted living.


Nope, I know that around here Assisted Living is not considered medical. AAMOF, if you need medically caused assistance more than once on a daily basis you are out the door.
Nursing homes are not covered by Medicare either, you can do as we as a gang of socialists did for my mother and use the money she had from the proceeds of selling her house OR you can apply for Medicaid.


----------



## sueandlynette (Sep 10, 2013)

Hi Evie yes so many of us are in the same boat and yes, I always knew what a fixed income meant but did not realise it would be so hard. As you say, things go up and one cannot afford to pay the extra - glad that you are able to get them to bring your increases back down again. We certainly cannot - our rates and taxes, licences etc go up and that is what we are expected to pay - very hard indeed. Nice to be able to share with you all out there. Lynette


----------



## sueandlynette (Sep 10, 2013)

Oh Valkyrie your story is so like ours - what we thought was enough is now nowhere enough. I thought in the USA things were so much better than here in SA. Seems there are so very many of us in the same boat. My husband is 85 and sometimes says he has lived too long - so very sad! I would not be able to survive without him yet - so rather struggle together and not think too much of the future.


----------



## Nativelady (Oct 20, 2011)

The people that I was referring to getting SS without contributing anything in to the system are NOT refugees. The Italian guy came over here and did work but did not pay into the system due to his status as an Italian citizen. His gs bragged about this to me. The Russian people are not refugees either; they have more than enough money to live in the most expensive areas of Milwaukee and move in that society. They are getting a free "ride" and I don't believe that should be happening.


----------



## blavell (Mar 18, 2011)

I don't know where you live but, I've never seen these things except dehydrated food for camping & that stuff is pretty pricey. Where do you get these powdered items?


misssusan644 said:


> I'm typing on a tiny cell phone with a mini stylus but 3rd time's gonna work!
> 
> One way to save money is to cook with dehydrated/freeze dried foods. If there are any LDS ladies on this forum we could exchange recipes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Nativelady said:


> The people that I was referring to getting SS without contributing anything in to the system are NOT refugees. The Italian guy came over here and did work but did not pay into the system due to his status as an Italian citizen. His gs bragged about this to me. The Russian people are not refugees either; they have more than enough money to live in the most expensive areas of Milwaukee and move in that society. They are getting a free "ride" and I don't believe that should be happening.


Then you should report them as they are breaking the law.
You know sometimes people just lie. Immigrants, even illegal ones, pay into social security if they work at a legitimate employer.


----------



## Nativelady (Oct 20, 2011)

This has really been an interesting subject for most of us and I am glad that we can compare circumstances with each other. Living on a fixed income is not easy for most of us but we will do the best that we can with what we have. 
I have always lived frugally and can not change now or want to change. There have been many ups and downs along the way and I just try to navigate my way through. There are many people that have more than I do but there many that are not as fortunate. I would love to be able to travel but if I can't, I can see many beautiful pictures of places right here on KP from friends around the world. I have been blessed.


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

blavell said:


> I don't know where you live but, I've never seen these things except dehydrated food for camping & that stuff is pretty pricey. Where do you get these powdered items?


I buy my products from the following websites:
www.augasonfarms.com
www.emergencyessentials.com
www.thrive.com

Emergency food is also available at Walmart.com, Costco.com. and Amazon as well as other vendors.

Since the product all comes from the same supplier (just different labels), buy according to price.

I keep these products on hand because when you need to go shopping, you might not be able to. Bad weather, the government shuts down and you may not get your check or maybe you're sick. There are a multitude of reasons for having a food Plan B.

If you live in Utah availability may be greater.


----------



## nanacari (Aug 22, 2011)

I've been on a fixed income for 10yrs. now. I live in subsidized housing, no longer have a car, seldom go out (Taco Bell or Mc Donalds) are a treat for me. The one thing I've learned is you must budget, budget, budget..I try to consider all possibilities and budget quarterly. I do have cable, as I need some other form of entertainment besides reading, and I have my little dog to keep me company. So we manage.


----------



## mkjfrj (Apr 2, 2011)

rasputin said:


> you are not being crabby...and if you were you have a right to vent...you poor thing. My husband never wanted to retire . he has an electrical contracting business and said he was gonna work until he died! Well, everything was going along fine until #1 we buried our son, #2 my husband health is not good. #3 he can hardly do anything anymore. He planned on sitting at the desk getting the work for my son and other employees but that didn't work out. And then to put the nail in the coffin, the down turn in 2008 just about closed us up. I guess plans never work out the way we want. We all have a right to vent.


I so agree; life is not promised and all of our wishes will not be granted but we just try to live each day as it comes. Hopefully, more good days than bad and hopefully when the bad days do come, we are able to face and overcome them.


----------



## kittysgram (Nov 12, 2011)

i retired in march. ss and some small avings. but i feel great and do not have to drive 62 miles a day,get up at 3:30 am and come home tired.i shop resales,knit,crochet and sew. reduced my insurance costs(because of not driving) my has was paid off 3 years ago and my car will be next month. i have 2 frezers of food and a pantry.i stockpiled some thigs before. i buy flour in 25# sacks and bake a lot. my children and grandchildren love when gram cooks.i help them whatever way i can.no i do not want to live with them.i got a ss raise when i turned 66 as my deceased ex hubands ss was higher than mine.i am very frugal and HAPPY. some people need to learn to do without extras and focus on the good things. think i will go volunteer at the food pantry. there are so many less fortunate people around us. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL. be it a great 2014!!!


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

I too live in public housing with other senior citizens. My car recently died so I have to ride the bus. The store is less than 2 miles away but I recently injured my back so I can't walk that far. The bus ride is 40 minutes of bouncing. Schwan's to the rescue! People often comment on nthe cost but for singles it really helps. I buy plain protein and the 
occasional carton of ice cream. They accept food stamps and give a 5% rebate on every purchase. They stand behind their products, but I have never had a problem.

It's cold, the flu is going around and so I really appreciate having food delivered to my door.

Schwan's also makes many grocery store brands like Totino's and Red Baron pizza. They also supply restaurants. You've probably eaten their food and not known it.

I've heard that Walmart is considering a grocery delivery service. They are testing it now. I would welcome it, especially in the hot summer months.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I agree Emma. I do not think of receiving monthly SS income as "fixed income." Fixed Income to me means exactly that; receiving a fixed amount of income from your investments that you previously planned or budgeted for and invested in to have in your retirement years or after you stopped earning compensation.
> 
> For example, your 401(K) withdrawals at a monthly 'fixed' amount you decided upon. I have never sought to think of monies I contributed to SS during my earning years to be income returned to me in my retirement.
> 
> SS was never meant to be a person's sole source of income after the age of eligibility and should never be relied upon either. Of course, many folks only have SS as a source of income if they did not contribute to any retirement and/or investment assets or annuities for themselves. Also, SS is adjusted (since the 70's I believe) for COLA/inflation so it does change regularly and is based on what one earned and contributed as well. President Obama did try to change the CPI indexing of SS payments (if effective, he would have lowered all recipient's monthly amount but Obama's efforts did not pass.)


Nodding in agreement


----------



## Irish knitter (Mar 29, 2011)

SOOOOOOOO....after reading all 22 pages of this is wanting to go to the ocean an sit on the sand with my bible a frivilous thing?? It is my only pleasure but I never get there because it is 4 hours away each way.....just wondering if it is a frivilous wish...!!!???

I thank everyone who contributed to this thread as it has made me think and be thankful for what I have.....this was very thought provoking;; inspiring; a learning lesson and I walk away a better; more informed person.....

Evie RM....THANK YOU for starting this as it has helped me greatly!!

Everyone have a Great New Year (and may God bless us all)
Eileen


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Then you should report them as they are breaking the law.
> You know sometimes people just lie. Immigrants, even illegal ones, pay into social security if they work at a legitimate employer.


Then since you know this about some illegal immigrants, you should report them as they are breaking the law.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Then since you know this about some illegal immigrants, you should report them as they are breaking the law.


Tell it to the IRS who collects the money.

http://immilaw.com/FAQ/Information%20for%20Employers%20Paying%20Wages%20to%20Illegal%20Aliens.htm


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> My husband and I laid the best plans. He died suddenly at 43. The kids were little. I could never earn what he did. Your advice is good, but not everyone can do it.


We had nice plans too. Then I became very disabled (not predictable, that) and I was the main breadwinner. I agree with you, life happens and just takes us along on the ride sometimes.


----------



## blavell (Mar 18, 2011)

Thank you, I'll look into this. I had no idea this sort of stuff was available. 


misssusan644 said:


> I buy my products from the following websites:
> www.augasonfarms.com
> www.emergencyessentials.com
> www.thrive.com
> ...


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

missylam said:


> I was left with enough to last my lifetime, but friends and family started borrowing and of course only one has bothered to pay me back. Now I just have SS. I should have learned to just say no. They seem to never have enough to pay me anything.


It's a pity you didn't learn "No" a lot earlier. Unfortunately, few women do.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Yup, neither a borrower nor a lender be...


Shakespeare gave that line to someone he pictured as a doddering old fool (Polonius).


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> _Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in "special-issue" securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund. _


Didn't bother to look at the links, did you?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Shakespeare gave that line to someone he pictured as a doddering old fool (Polonius).


LOL, and this doddering old fool is still saying it. 
And not worried about her retirement monies.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> You are wrong! they are not cutting unemployment benefits. They let the extension expire. It is REDICULAS to have unemployment benefits of more than 2 years. Most states have benefits of 26 weeks (one-half year) and possibly federal benefits of another 26 weeks. Why would anyone need more than that.
> 
> There are many seasonal jobs where you can work about 3 months collect unemployment then work another seasonal job for another 3 months and collect more unemployment. This is especially true in the farming areas, planting and harvest. Unless people are to lazy to do a honest day's work.
> 
> Remember it is the Democrats that are tax and spend. They want to make people so dependent on the government they are unable to take care of themselves. Any successful jobs bill will reduce restrictions on private companies, and eliminate the uncertainties in Obamacare. Companies need to know what will happen in the next 5 or so years so they can invest in their future. Government will never create jobs to produce a good economy.


And Republicans in elective office are don't tax and spend.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> You are wrong! they are not cutting unemployment benefits. They let the extension expire. It is REDICULAS to have unemployment benefits of more than 2 years. Most states have benefits of 26 weeks (one-half year) and possibly federal benefits of another 26 weeks. Why would anyone need more than that.
> 
> There are many seasonal jobs where you can work about 3 months collect unemployment then work another seasonal job for another 3 months and collect more unemployment. This is especially true in the farming areas, planting and harvest. Unless people are to lazy to do a honest day's work.
> 
> Remember it is the Democrats that are tax and spend. They want to make people so dependent on the government they are unable to take care of themselves. Any successful jobs bill will reduce restrictions on private companies, and eliminate the uncertainties in Obamacare. Companies need to know what will happen in the next 5 or so years so they can invest in their future. Government will never create jobs to produce a good economy.


First of all, those seasonal jobs--like most jobs in this economy--have up to two hundred people applying for them. I know, because since I retired I have applied for quite a few and have seen the crowds. So the likelihood of getting them is not good. I recently applied for an event staff position at Angels Stadium (ticket taking, usher, etc.) and they had two interview groups that day--mine was comprised of 125 people, and it was heartbreaking to see people in their 20s-60s all hoping for the few part-time positions available, especially the older ones desperately dressed in their business suits and carrying their resumes.

Second, the government *can* create jobs to better the economy--look at the CCC and other federal jobs programs during the Depression.

Accusing people of being lazy for not getting jobs is ridiculous. They need help, not derision.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> If you are single, do you pay more than $6100 for real estate taxes, state income taxes, mortgage interest and charitable giving? for married filing joint, double that.
> 
> If that amount is less than $6100 (or $12,200 mfj). Any interest deduction is worthless. If it is close, the only saving is 10% to 15% of the amount you pay in mortgage interest.
> 
> If you only have Social Security as income, there will be no tax advantage. I question your statement about "the bills die with me." since you own a house, any bills will be paid by your estate. (probably by selling the house).


Thank you, Joey, I was pretty sure that the interest deduction was not worth keeping a mortgage payment if one could pay it off. I couldn't remember exactly what my tax guy said about it though. It's a good thing to put that out there for people.


----------



## blavell (Mar 18, 2011)

YOU ARE WRONG for assuming that people who can't find work are lazy. Maybe you would be more compassionate if you lost your job. Also, keep your politics to yourself, this is not the place for it.


joeysomma said:


> You are wrong! they are not cutting unemployment benefits. They let the extension expire. It is REDICULAS to have unemployment benefits of more than 2 years. Most states have benefits of 26 weeks (one-half year) and possibly federal benefits of another 26 weeks. Why would anyone need more than that.
> 
> There are many seasonal jobs where you can work about 3 months collect unemployment then work another seasonal job for another 3 months and collect more unemployment. This is especially true in the farming areas, planting and harvest. Unless people are to lazy to do a honest day's work.
> 
> Remember it is the Democrats that are tax and spend. They want to make people so dependent on the government they are unable to take care of themselves. Any successful jobs bill will reduce restrictions on private companies, and eliminate the uncertainties in Obamacare. Companies need to know what will happen in the next 5 or so years so they can invest in their future. Government will never create jobs to produce a good economy.


----------



## chickkie (Oct 26, 2011)

why does every thread turn into a political one. There are many of us that are not US residents but are still on fixed income.

Many countries are represented on this forum.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

sumpleby said:


> First of all, those seasonal jobs--like most jobs in this economy--have up to two hundred people applying for them. I know, because since I retired I have applied for quite a few and have seen the crowds. So the likelihood of getting them is not good. I recently applied for an event staff position at Angels Stadium (ticket taking, usher, etc.) and they had two interview groups that day--mine was comprised of 125 people, and it was heartbreaking to see people in their 20s-60s all hoping for the few part-time positions available, especially the older ones desperately dressed in their business suits and carrying their resumes.
> 
> Second, the government *can* create jobs to better the economy--look at the CCC and other federal jobs programs during the Depression.
> 
> Accusing people of being lazy for not getting jobs is ridiculous. They need help, not derision.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Jennyp1 (Nov 19, 2012)

This is not a political forum, so keep the politics where they belong. We in England have all the same problems, but we keep them to ourselves. This is for knitters and that is what it should be all about


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> _Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in "special-issue" securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund. _


But the securities still exist and have value.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> This is a quote from the link you provided.


So you felt it was necessary to repeat the info, trying to make it look as if I had provided erroneous information because?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You are wrong! they are not cutting unemployment benefits. They let the extension expire. It is REDICULAS to have unemployment benefits of more than 2 years. Most states have benefits of 26 weeks (one-half year) and possibly federal benefits of another 26 weeks. Why would anyone need more than that.


Because regardless of what you think, it is difficult for people in their fifties and sixties (or younger, if disabled) to find work they are physically able to do. Sure, tell a man who drove a truck for 30 years and now has a bad back that he can go and pick oranges in Florida for 3 months, or a woman who used to be an executive assistant until her company went out of business that she could do housecleaning to make ends meet.



> There are many seasonal jobs where you can work about 3 months collect unemployment then work another seasonal job for another 3 months and collect more unemployment. This is especially true in the farming areas, planting and harvest. Unless people are to lazy to do a honest day's work.
> 
> Remember it is the Democrats that are tax and spend. They want to make people so dependent on the government they are unable to take care of themselves. Any successful jobs bill will reduce restrictions on private companies, and eliminate the uncertainties in Obamacare. Companies need to know what will happen in the next 5 or so years so they can invest in their future. Government will never create jobs to produce a good economy.


Remember, it is the GOP who *say* that the Democrats are "tax and spend." (The GOP is don't tax but spend anyway.) Given their tendency to lie, I'd say that their description of the Dems is not true. And as others have pointed out, FDR managed to create jobs and restore the economy.

And nobody ever asked FDR to supply his birth certificate. :?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You are wrong! they are not cutting unemployment benefits. They let the extension expire. It is REDICULAS


Is that a Greek word? It doesn't look like English.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You repeatedly said it was invested, others said it was not there. I pointed out how it was invested. Since it is in the General fund, I can see where others will say it is not there.
> So each is sort of right.


Except that SS has never missed a payment, which means the admin. can get the money when it needs to.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

sumpleby said:


> First of all, those seasonal jobs--like most jobs in this economy--have up to two hundred people applying for them. I know, because since I retired I have applied for quite a few and have seen the crowds. So the likelihood of getting them is not good. I recently applied for an event staff position at Angels Stadium (ticket taking, usher, etc.) and they had two interview groups that day--mine was comprised of 125 people, and it was heartbreaking to see people in their 20s-60s all hoping for the few part-time positions available, especially the older ones desperately dressed in their business suits and carrying their resumes.
> 
> Second, the government *can* create jobs to better the economy--look at the CCC and other federal jobs programs during the Depression.
> 
> Accusing people of being lazy for not getting jobs is ridiculous. They need help, not derision.


Extending unemployment isn't helping them in the long run. It just establishes the fact that they will receive money whether they look for employment or not. It's up to 99 weeks now, why should it continue past that? Where does the responsibility of the unemployed to provide for themselves (find a job) enter the equation? It has been proven that in Europe and in Greece, when the unemployment benefits are almost up, the unemployed do find work they are willing to do.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Remember, it is the GOP who *say* that the Democrats are "tax and spend." (The GOP is don't tax but spend anyway.) Given their tendency to lie, I'd say that their description of the Dems is not true. And as others have pointed out, FDR managed to create jobs and restore the economy.
> 
> And nobody ever asked FDR to supply his birth certificate. :?


So if nobody asked to see Obama's birth certificate, the economy would be thriving?

Yes, FDR did create jobs, but at the same time, he kept the US in the Depression far longer than necessary.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

sumpleby said:


> First of all, those seasonal jobs--like most jobs in this economy--have up to two hundred people applying for them. I know, because since I retired I have applied for quite a few and have seen the crowds. So the likelihood of getting them is not good. I recently applied for an event staff position at Angels Stadium (ticket taking, usher, etc.) and they had two interview groups that day--mine was comprised of 125 people, and it was heartbreaking to see people in their 20s-60s all hoping for the few part-time positions available, especially the older ones desperately dressed in their business suits and carrying their resumes.


I know exactly what you mean, Sumpleby. A couple of weeks back I saw a 50ish gentleman in a suit trying desperately to hold the cashier's attention and stimulate some interest in the job application he was handing over. It really upset me--I couldn't get out of there fast enough.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> WWII is what brought the US out of the depression. FDR made the depression longer with his government programs when he first took office. This I learned in grade school.


Yes, the war effort created a lot of jobs, esp. for women. How come the wars we've been in since 2003 weren't enough to protect us from this last recession?

And he did make the depression last longer by not spending enough money to finish it off. By the next round, he had learned better, and managed to create the New Deal.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> They still do not need more than one years worth of unemployment. Giving them money for not working is not helping.


Who are you to decide how much unemployment people need? Are you an economist? A government adviser?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> WWII is what brought the US out of the depression. FDR made the depression longer with his government programs when he first took office. This I learned in grade school.


Could that possibly be because just like this time private business holds on to their money rather than invest it in production and people?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> So if nobody asked to see Obama's birth certificate, the economy would be thriving?
> 
> Yes, FDR did create jobs, but at the same time, he kept the US in the Depression far longer than necessary.


Could you explain to us how Franklin D. Roosevelt kept the world in a depression longer? Necessary is an odd word to use, the depression was not necessary. Corrections in finances may sometimes be necessary, depressions, not so much.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

chickkie said:


> why does every thread turn into a political one. There are many of us that are not US residents but are still on fixed income.
> 
> Many countries are represented on this forum.


And lucky you, you do not suffer from the divisiveness that we are.
It has been a long couple of decades.


----------



## Grammy Toni (Apr 30, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> As the wife of Serbian-born man I find your comment offensive, to say the least. My husband has worked here and paid into the system for almost twenty years. Do you want to strip him of his benefits just because he has chosen not to become a citizen?


No one is talking about your husband who paid into the system and now is getting his SS. We are talking about the immigrants who come over and are "given" SS benefits without having payed into the system - or into Medicare. People who have lived here all their lives and not worked, stay at home moms for example, could not get Medicare or even SS benefits because they hadn't paid into it. With the new system, now they will be eligible for medical benefits. No one is begrudging anyone who paid into the system. We are complaining about how our money was not used the way it was supposed to be used - put into trusts and invested so it would never run out. As mentioned above in several posts, now they are saying we may be getting our money back, but they are all but calling it welfare - like we hadn't earned it to begin with!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> So if nobody asked to see Obama's birth certificate, the economy would be thriving?
> 
> Yes, FDR did create jobs, but at the same time, he kept the US in the Depression far longer than necessary.


1) Probably not. But the people who wanted to see his birth cert. are the same people who have prevented him from doing anything about a jobs bill.

And I wanted to take the opportunity to point out that obody asked to see the birth certificate of *any* president before Obama, who just happens to be the first African-American president.

2) Sure, blame FDR instead of Coolidge and Hoover, who got us into the mess. Just as you blame Obama instead of Bush, who got us into the mess. FDR was misled by the same advice that Hoover took as gospel. Any time "in" the depression was longer than necessary. FDR didn't start his administration until March of 1933, three and a half years after the stock market crashed. That was three and a half years too much.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> And Republicans in elective office are don't tax and spend.


It is utter foolishness to spend what you don't have. The USA is broke. The only way the government can pay it's bills is to borrow from a country that save more than it spends, like China. If during the last 5 years under Obama the USA had expanded its economy, we would have less debt. But he only understood spending. If the government had just maintained its current spending level and not lost so many industries due to New government regulations, more Americans would have been earning rather than needing unemployment. But, Obama and the Democrats keep wanting to spend more to give unearned benefits to Americans such as free phones, an extra year of unemployment, and Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid.

The next shoe to drop will be when Obama confiscates our IRA's and 401K's. He'll call it a loan to the government and promise a percent or two income on the funds, but we'll lose the ability to draw it out. It's coming folks. He wants to spend and will take it from any source available. The only hope is a Republican House and Senate to curb his spending addiction.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Grammy Toni said:


> No one is talking about your husband who paid into the system and now is getting his SS. We are talking about the immigrants who come over and are "given" SS benefits without having payed into the system - or into Medicare. People who have lived here all their lives and not worked, stay at home moms for example, could not get Medicare or even SS benefits because they hadn't paid into it. With the new system, now they will be eligible for medical benefits. No one is begrudging anyone who paid into the system. We are complaining about how our money was not used the way it was supposed to be used - put into trusts and invested so it would never run out. As mentioned above in several posts, now they are saying we may be getting our money back, but they are all but calling it welfare - like we hadn't earned it to begin with!


Where do you people get these ideas? 
A married woman is part of a partnership and as such benefits from a stingy half of what her husband's annual payment would be. 
Now I grant you that when I was 14 and Medicare was developed that I wasn't paying too much attention to just how the system was originally. It has certainly been meant for all people 65 and over who have a stake in the program for as long as I have been an adult. 
Would you have these women who stayed home and supported their families and the children of many "working" parents out on the street with no income? Seriously?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> It is utter foolishness to spend what you don't have. The USA is broke. The only way the government can pay it's bills is to borrow from a country that save more than it spends, like China. If during the last 5 years under Obama the USA had expanded its economy, we would have less debt. But he only understood spending. If the government had just maintained its current spending level and not lost so many industries due to New government regulations, more Americans would have been earning rather than needing unemployment. But, Obama and the Democrats keep wanting to spend more to give unearned benefits to Americans such as free phones, an extra year of unemployment, and Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid.
> 
> The next shoe to drop will be when Obama confiscates our IRA's and 401K's. He'll call it a loan to the government and promise a percent or two income on the funds, but we'll lose the ability to draw it out. It's coming folks. He wants to spend and will take it from any source available. The only hope is a Republican House and Senate to curb his spending addiction.


Yes indeed, we are broke. We have been broke for decades. 
It has absolutely nothing to do with President Obama. 
We have been "broke" since the beginning of the century, for a good 50 years before I was born. 
So let's just stop spending any money. 
How would that be? 
No more Social Security payments, no more support for law enforcement, we can let all of the mentally ill and mentally retarded (don't say it, it is still the medical definition) out on the streets as they are supported with federal dollars. 
No more military, no more inspections, works for me. 
Let's just close down the banking system and the regulators... and the internet.


----------



## Grammy Toni (Apr 30, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Where do you people get these ideas?
> A married woman is part of a partnership and as such benefits from a stingy half of what her husband's annual payment would be.
> Now I grant you that when I was 14 and Medicare was developed that I wasn't paying too much attention to just how the system was originally. It has certainly been meant for all people 65 and over who have a stake in the program for as long as I have been an adult.
> Would you have these women who stayed home and supported their families and the children of many "working" parents out on the street with no income? Seriously?


Actually, yes they got 1/2 of the husband's SS - which back in the 60s and 70s wouldn't have amounted to much! My Aunt got approx 265.00 a month. Actually a single friend of mine who didn't work enough quarters would not have qualified for Medicare when she was eligible if she hadn't quickly gotten a part-time job to earn the necessary quarters.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Grammy Toni said:


> No one is talking about your husband who paid into the system and now is getting his SS. We are talking about the immigrants who come over and are "given" SS benefits without having payed into the system - or into Medicare. People who have lived here all their lives and not worked, stay at home moms for example, could not get Medicare or even SS benefits because they hadn't paid into it. With the new system, now they will be eligible for medical benefits. No one is begrudging anyone who paid into the system. We are complaining about how our money was not used the way it was supposed to be used - put into trusts and invested so it would never run out. As mentioned above in several posts, now they are saying we may be getting our money back, but they are all but calling it welfare - like we hadn't earned it to begin with!


As has been pointed out, with rare exceptions (underage children of deceased wage earners, for example) no one collects Social Security unless they have put some money into the system. Anyone who does otherwise (and boasts of it, no less) is committing a criminal act. SS wasn't designed to be a "free ride" for anyone.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Grammy Toni said:


> No one is talking about your husband who paid into the system and now is getting his SS. We are talking about the immigrants who come over and are "given" SS benefits without having payed into the system - or into Medicare. People who have lived here all their lives and not worked, stay at home moms for example, could not get Medicare or even SS benefits because they hadn't paid into it. With the new system, now they will be eligible for medical benefits. No one is begrudging anyone who paid into the system. We are complaining about how our money was not used the way it was supposed to be used - put into trusts and invested so it would never run out. As mentioned above in several posts, now they are saying we may be getting our money back, but they are all but calling it welfare - like we hadn't earned it to begin with!


Here is a more concise response to your immigrant payment challenge than I could ever develop.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/social-security-for-immigrants-and-refugees/

It is really necessary to use the link in order to get the full thrust as the initial charges are covered in there.

FULL ANSWER
Well start with the most comical error. There is no monthly payment to refugees.
Refugee Re-do
The wrongheaded idea that refugees in the U.S. get "a monthly allowance of $1,890" actually started as a mistaken claim about refugees in Canada. In 2004 an irate Canadian misread a story in the Toronto Star and sent off an error-filled e-mail, which was so widely forwarded it prompted an official debunking by the Canadian government. Somewhere along the way a malicious prankster copied the falsehood almost verbatim and applied it to the U.S. We explained all this in an "Ask FactCheck" item in 2007.
Maximum Mistake
Also wrong  and by a wide margin  is the claim that a Social Security pensioner can get "a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension." The true figure is more than double that. A person retiring this year at the full retirement age of 66 could qualify for a monthly check of up to $2,323, depending on how much she earned and paid into the system over her working life, according to the Social Security Administration.
Notch Baby Nonsense
The example of the woman who retired in 2004 after 60 years of work is also absurd. For one thing, somebody born in 1924 normally would have retired no later than full retirement age  which then was 65 years and four months  rather than continuing to work until age 80.
Its remotely possible that a relatively low-income worker would have received a monthly pension check of only $791 per month as claimed, but depending on her earnings over her working life she could have received up to $1,825 per month  which was the maximum pension benefit for persons retiring in 2004 at full retirement age. The average monthly benefit paid to all retirees in January 2004, including those who retired in earlier years, was $903. That was adjusted upward to $922 by the annual cost of living adjustment that year.
The reference to a "catch 22" may be a garbled allusion to the "notch baby" controversy from an earlier decade. Some persons born between 1916 and 1921 felt unfairly treated by an adjustment Congress made in 1977, and they lobbied Congress for years to increase their benefits. Financial columnist Jane Bryant Quinn called their grievance "a distortion" in a 1999 article explaining the background. But whatever side one takes in the dispute, its a simple fact that somebody born in 1924 would not have been affected.
Bashing Immigrants
The message seeks to generate outrage about over-generous treatment of "immigrants," but misleads the reader in several ways  mainly by failing to distinguish between illegal immigrants (who generally dont qualify for any benefits) and naturalized U.S. citizens.
It begins by saying "If the immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid." Note that SSI, the acronym for Supplemental Security Income, is a welfare system separate from Social Security retirement benefits. Medicaid is a state-federal program providing medical insurance for low-income persons and is separate from the federal Medicare system for any American who reaches age 65.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> But the securities still exist and have value.


Exactly.


----------



## Crochetnknit (Apr 10, 2013)

calisuzi said:


> Crochetnknit, also had to leave an area I love so I could afford rent and ended up with higher electric in summer (air conditioning) and gas for heat in the winter and food is more expensive. Have a roof over my head so can't complain and total lack of friends here gives me more knitting time. Thank you for letting me whine, I needed that.


Yeh, I'm whining also. Housing is cheaper but food is more expensive, insurance for cars and house more expensive, and cost to register car in FL is over $400.00!!! And so on and so on....

However, couldn't pay mortgage in VA on our reduced income and can here in FL and still have the food and other costs covered.

We are making new friends, finding things to do, and trying to enjoy life in our new community. So far, it is working.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

chickkie said:


> why does every thread turn into a political one. There are many of us that are not US residents but are still on fixed income.
> 
> Many countries are represented on this forum.


Darn it, chickkie, grab the thread back! 
Make it your own again!


----------



## Hannelore (Oct 26, 2011)

[quote. I guess plans never work out the way we want. We all have a right to vent.[/quote]

My husband was looking forward to retiring. As you said our plans never work out the way we want. He died just a month before he was able to retire. His Super was not much (although he always thought it was good) but I am able to cope. Our house was paid off, I had to buy a new car 2 years ago and I was able to pay cash for it. Here in Australia once we turn 60 and work less than 19 hours a week we can get train, bus and ferry travel for $2.50 a day, some of our doctors bulk bill (patient doesn't pay, government does) and for pensioners and I think anyone on a special card gets prescriptions for $5.90. Private Health care is available, but if one doesn't have it then public health is available. Only problem there is that some operations can take a long time to get done as the waiting lists are really bad. 
I think everyone tries their best but sometimes things just go wrong.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> It is utter foolishness to spend what you don't have. The USA is broke. The only way the government can pay it's bills is to borrow from a country that save more than it spends, like China. If during the last 5 years under Obama the USA had expanded its economy, we would have less debt. But he only understood spending. If the government had just maintained its current spending level and not lost so many industries due to New government regulations, more Americans would have been earning rather than needing unemployment. But, Obama and the Democrats keep wanting to spend more to give unearned benefits to Americans such as free phones, an extra year of unemployment, and Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid.
> 
> The next shoe to drop will be when Obama confiscates our IRA's and 401K's. He'll call it a loan to the government and promise a percent or two income on the funds, but we'll lose the ability to draw it out. It's coming folks. He wants to spend and will take it from any source available. The only hope is a Republican House and Senate to curb his spending addiction.


This all started under Bush. Was it utter foolishness he spent money we didn't have? Did you complain when he went into Iraq, a war that was unfunded? Did you complain when he started the Part D prescription plan, it too was unfunded. Afghanistan, also unfunded. President Obama will not confiscate any IRA's or 401k's. It is people like you that scare the he-- out of people by saying stuff like this that is all in your imagination. There was an email going around earlier that said Medicare was going up to something over $200.00, [don't remember the exact amount] all because of Obamacare. A lot of people on Medicare believed it and none of it was true. The letters just went out saying Medicare would stay at $104.90, but people worried about it for the last year. Do you have any idea what your rubbish talk does to some elderly people?
President Obama has tried to expand the economy, but tell me how many bills has congress passed to make that happen. He can't do it alone. If he makes an executive decision, you complain and if he does nothing, you complain. 
How many industries have we lost in the last 5 years due to new regulations? The Obama administration HAS NOT given anyone free phones. That plan was started under Reagan and the phones and money needed comes from the phone companies, not the government. This has been discussed so many times and you are still spreading the same LIE. It is a LIE. 
Did you complain when Bush raised the debt limit? I'll bet you didn't even know it happened. Republicans voted 7 times to raise the debt ceiling under Bush, but for the first time, they all of a sudden don't want to do it any more. Because the president is a democrat? They have voted to raise it for other democrats, so why now? They have been against this president since the day he took office. This is way more than just partisan politics. The republicans are HYPOCRITES.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

There just seems to be so much false information out there, that even when it is stated and proven to be wrong, people keep repeating it as the truth. Info posted about immigrants, no proof, just something they heard so it is repeated as the truth. The Oboma phone crap that is actually a Reagan phone, if you want to give it a name. It has been answered many times, but still repeated as the truth. Now President Obama is going to confiscate IRA's and 401K's. Do you people dream a lot at night to gather this information together, or do you get up every morning with the thought of, what lie can I pass on today. You are amazing!!!!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Tell it to the IRS who collects the money.


Why repeatedly tell others to do something that you personally are not doing? Or are you?


----------



## rasputin (Apr 21, 2013)

#1Patsy said:


> Besides fixed income there are the scammers out there. Looking for extra cash I put on Craig's list something for sale all I got was folks that wanted to barter their junk. But biggest of all was the one that sent me $2250 more then I asked. If I'd cashed the check and sent that amount by money gram to his trucker, the check would have bounced in less then ten days and I would have owed the money back to bank plus my asked for 150. I had called sheriff, to see what I should do. that dud threatened me to have FBI at my door because I did not cash his check, instead I returned it to him voided. Be ware be safe


I read about this in the newspaper...paying more than you wanted. It is a scam


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> If you are single, do you pay more than $6100 for real estate taxes, state income taxes, mortgage interest and charitable giving? for married filing joint, double that.
> 
> If that amount is less than $6100 (or $12,200 mfj). Any interest deduction is worthless. If it is close, the only saving is 10% to 15% of the amount you pay in mortgage interest.
> 
> If you only have Social Security as income, there will be no tax advantage. I question your statement about "the bills die with me." since you own a house, any bills will be paid by your estate. (probably by selling the house).


I agree. I remain amazed that many folks hold on firmly to deductions for their income tax returns while thinking nothing of spending 100% of the cost of the interest in order to keep a percentage portion of the deduction. When it comes to tax returns, it is always best to increase your income and reduce your expenses and not worry about keeping your deductions.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Then you should report them as they are breaking the law.
> You know sometimes people just lie. Immigrants, even illegal ones, pay into social security if they work at a legitimate employer.


I don't see how that would be possible, either. In order to draw SS, one must have a SS number, which is attached to a SS account. The amount of SS one draws is based on how much one has earned over the last ten years of one's working career. No number, no account, no income = no ability to draw SS. In the event that one works "under the table," but can prove employment, one gets into trouble for lack of paying SS into his/her account, and so does the employer. How do I know this? I had a 23-year career with the Department of Human services, and was required to work very closely with Social Security Administration in determining, and redetermining every six months, whether clients were employed, whether they had a SS account, how much money was going into that account, who the employer(s) were, etc. If everything was not in order or laws were being broken, the clients' cases were closed.

Bragging about beating the system is an extremely common way of gaining "street cred;" actually beating the system is rare, doesn't happen for very long, and has the same outcome as breaking any other laws.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

blavell said:


> YOU ARE WRONG for assuming that people who can't find work are lazy. Maybe you would be more compassionate if you lost your job. Also, keep your politics to yourself, this is not the place for it.


Blavell, please don't place blame on Joeysomma for replying to NJG who was the one to bring politics into the discussion. Also, this thread is very relevant to politics and the choices made by our Congressmen and Presidents on SS because most posters believe Social Security is fixed income.


----------



## rasputin (Apr 21, 2013)

flhusker said:


> Hubby and I also are retired and on a fixed income. We both have our SS. What worries the heck out of me is if something happens to him and I'm left alone I can't make it on just my SS.


I don't know if this is true in every state, but here in Mass. I get approx. 1/2 of what my husband gets. If his is more than mine than I can take approx. 1/2 of his instead. I don't know if i explained it correctly.
My friend had 3 husbands. she collected SS and SS called her and told her to collect off of the husband who made the most money. so they switched her to husband #1.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> But the securities still exist and have value.


The special securities are Treasury bonds and all bonds are IOUs. Joey didn't state the value is depleted, but the monies rob Peter to pay Paul and is not as designed.


----------



## chickkie (Oct 26, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Darn it, chickkie, grab the thread back!
> Make it your own again!


It is impossible as every post seems to be political now. No one cares about anyone outside the US. I would never bring Canadian politics here, so I won't bother watching any more.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> I don't see how that would be possible, either. In order to draw SS, one must have a SS number, which is attached to a SS account. The amount of SS one draws is based on how much one has earned over the last ten years of one's working career. No number, no account, no income = no ability to draw SS. In the event that one works "under the table," but can prove employment, one gets into trouble for lack of paying SS into his/her account, and so does the employer. How do I know this? I had a 23-year career with the Department of Human services, and was required to work very closely with Social Security Administration in determining, and redetermining every six months, whether clients were employed, whether they had a SS account, how much money was going into that account, who the employer(s) were, etc. If everything was not in order or laws were being broken, the clients' cases were closed.
> 
> Bragging about beating the system is an extremely common way of gaining "street cred;" actually beating the system is rare, doesn't happen for very long, and has the same outcome as breaking any other laws.


I have no idea how it works in most cases, the only direct experience I have is with folks who were here legally and applied to re-up for their papers and ICE would be behind in the paperwork so technically these folks were illegal. 
The employer would send out a notice, the staff person would call in a panic believing that they would be fired. As I gained a bit of experience in that arena it became easy to walk them through getting the paper work to prove it was the feds and all was well.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Extending unemployment isn't helping them in the long run. It just establishes the fact that they will receive money whether they look for employment or not. It's up to 99 weeks now, why should it continue past that? Where does the responsibility of the unemployed to provide for themselves (find a job) enter the equation? It has been proven that in Europe and in Greece, when the unemployment benefits are almost up, the unemployed do find work they are willing to do.


It has also been shown that a majority of Americans find a job within the final weeks of their unemployment benefits expiring.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> And Republicans in elective office are don't tax and spend.


;~D!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> 1) Probably not. But the people who wanted to see his birth cert. are the same people who have prevented him from doing anything about a jobs bill.
> 
> And I wanted to take the opportunity to point out that  obody asked to see the birth certificate of *any* president before Obama, who just happens to be the first African-American president.


1) No one has stopped Obama from doing anything about creating jobs. Obama refuses to even meet with his own Jobs Council. Obama could pass anything he wants since he controls the WH, the legislative branch and the Dem controlled Senate AND everything he wants he edicts by Executive Order or illegally anyway.

2) Every President in recent history has produced his BC and probably every Presidential candidate must also do the same to prove his citizenship and eligibility for the Presidency before becoming his party's nominee.

3) I'll repeat your own words you recently expressed to Joeysomma, "Is that (obody) a Greek word? It doesn't look like English."


----------



## Carole Murphy (Sep 17, 2013)

MarciasKnitting said:


> Love the idea of banding together! Always harken back to college and what a close group of "girls" I lived with in a dorm. I see a community of women in a college town that "rent" out space in exchange for cleaning, cooking, tutoring etc. Each person would have their own space and shared space. I see huge garden, weaving, knitting, yoga, informal learning & sharing of skills.


more like an adult commune instead of a hippie one. Main problem would be, what site? have to be big enough for all the walkers, scooters, wheel chairs, etc. guess I'm really not ready yet,


----------



## Carole Murphy (Sep 17, 2013)

NJG said:


> This all started under Bush. Was it utter foolishness he spent money we didn't have? Did you complain when he went into Iraq, a war that was unfunded? Did you complain when he started the Part D prescription plan, it too was unfunded. Afghanistan, also unfunded. President Obama will not confiscate any IRA's or 401k's. It is people like you that scare the he-- out of people by saying stuff like this that is all in your imagination. They have been against this president since the day he took office. . The republicans are HYPOCRITES.


perhaps "we" whoever that is , is against the president's spending is because we are not in many trillions of dollars in debt over things we had no control or say.
I am a republican and i take offense in your post, I also am Not a hyprocrite.


----------



## Dot-I (Jun 25, 2011)

Politics does NOT belong on a knitting site. Lets keep to needle work.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

NJG said:


> There just seems to be so much false information out there, that even when it is stated and proven to be wrong, people keep repeating it as the truth. Info posted about immigrants, no proof, just something they heard so it is repeated as the truth. The Oboma phone crap that is actually a Reagan phone, if you want to give it a name. It has been answered many times, but still repeated as the truth. Now President Obama is going to confiscate IRA's and 401K's. Do you people dream a lot at night to gather this information together, or do you get up every morning with the thought of, what lie can I pass on today. You are amazing!!!!


I believe that you've giving them too much credit, NJG. They don't have the imagination to dream this stuff up--it's spoon fed to them via The Blaze, Fox News, etc. I hadn't heard the wild fantasy about Obama seizing 401K's before, but I bet a million dollars it's been conjured up by one of those ultra-rightist sites.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> From Mother Jones:
> 
> _An ever increasing number of workers are looking to their defined contribution plans for their retirement security, but at the same time many workers are receiving their retirement benefits in lump sum distributions. This could increase their risk of not having an adequate income during retirement. Recent reports by the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Labors ERISA Advisory Council, a 15-member council representing employees, employers, the general public, and industry, have documented this risk.
> 
> ...


Nobody is talking about taking control over retirement disbursements. 
You have just read (I think you read the thread) several accounts of people being astounded that they had not put aside adequate funding for retirement. There is exploration concerning helping people become more realistic. 
Threatening, I suppose, if one sees government as evil and sinister.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The Reagan phone was a land line. The Obama phone is a cell phone, and it is misused.


How is a land line going to help someone living under a bridge? And for those still living in their own homes, basic cell phones are very inexpensive--$20 to $30. Certainly that's cheaper than paying the guy or gal from Pac Bell to come out and string the wires for a land line.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> It has also been shown that a majority of Americans find a job within the final weeks of their unemployment benefits expiring.


Where was that shown?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> The Reagan phone was a land line. The Obama phone is a cell phone, and it is misused. Why can someone get 3 when they are not qualified? They should only go to adults (18+) who are working or who are looking for work. They are paid with tax dollars. The tax is on the phone bill of the person who is responsible enough to pay their own bill. But it is still a tax. And the one paying it is a taxpayer.
> 
> The number of minutes and text messages that were mentioned is unnecessary. The 5 of us on the family plan (all adults), rarely use more than 500 min or 500 texts other than talking to each other, each month


It very often is still a landline. 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/02/12/are-taxpayers-paying-for-free-cell-phones/

Image via Wikipedia

This week, after a number of news programs ran stories about free cell phones being distributed to welfare recipients, I received a bunch of inquiries asking whether it was true. Specifically, I was asked whether there were free Obama phones being distributed on the taxpayers nickel.

Heres the scoop:

Yes, there is a law in place to help low-income customers have access to basic telephone service. Its divided into two programs: Link-Up America and Lifeline.

Link-Up assists consumers with the installation costs of phone service. The program pays up to $30 of the cost of installation and up to $200 in the form of a one year, interest-free loan for additional installation costs.

Lifeline provides discounts on basic monthly service at a primary residence for qualified telephone customers. These discounts can be up to $10.00 per month, or more for certain Native Americans. Generally, to qualify, your income must be at or below 135% of the federal poverty guidelines (these vary by location and size of family but for comparison, rings in at $22,350 for a family of four in the lower 48).

In some instances, coverage may include discounts for cell phone service instead of land lines at primary residences because realistically, cell phone service is less expensive in some areas than traditional service. Eligibility and type of program may vary from state to state  and this is why there is a flurry of confusion about the program being a product of the Obama administration. In Florida, for example, cell phone service was added to the existing program  in 2008, the year that Obama was elected to office. The conclusion from many folks was that it was a new federal program. It was not. It was an expansion of the existing program and implemented on a state by state basis.

The federal program dates back to 1996; it was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act did a number of things, including increasing internet access to doctors and patients in rural hospitals (for consults with specialists); subsidizing internet and phone coverage for schools and libraries and providing free or subsidized coverage for families who cant afford it so that they have links to emergency and government services. The Act was not taxpayer funded exactly. Taxpayers do pay for coverage but not via federal income taxes. Instead, the Act mandated the creation of the universal service fund (USF) into which all telecommunications providers are required to contribute a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. So that little fee on your phone bill labeled USF? Thats what youre paying for.

As you can imagine, not every one supports this idea. And yes, there has been abuse  you can read about efforts to curb abuse here (downloads as a pdf).

As a result, there is a bill in place to put an end to the practice. Introduced in November 18, 2011, by Rep. Tim Griffin (R-AR), the Stop Taxpayer Funded Cell Phones Act of 2011, has three co-sponsors, Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) and Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL). The text is as follows:

Prohibits a provider of commercial mobile communications service from receiving universal service support under specified provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 for the provision of such service through the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) Lifeline program (a program that provides discounts on monthly telephone service to qualifying low-income consumers).

The bill now sits in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Im guessing it will sit awhile.

So there you have it. Yes, the program exists. No, its not an Obama administration program. Yes, taxpayers support it but no, not through federal income taxes.

Whats your take?



Want more taxgirl goodness? Sign up to receive posts by email, follow me on twitter (@taxgirl) or hang out with me on Facebook.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

NJG said:


> I also have been on my own for 43 years. My husband died in a car accident in 1970 when I was pregnant and had a 2 year old. I feel very fortunate that they received survivors benefits, were both able to go to college and now are two of the greatest women I know. I am very proud of them and they have the utmost respect for me and people in general. I had great family support, but was still alone to do it all. Just not having some one to share the responsibility with and being able to discuss every day things with was very hard.


I'm so sorry, NJG. How hard that sounds! In the 90s the kids benefits ended when they graduated high school. At least we had enough to live.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

KPG quote: 1) No one has stopped Obama from doing anything about creating jobs. Obama refuses to even meet with his own Jobs Council. Obama could pass anything he wants since he controls the WH, the legislative branch and the Dem controlled Senate AND everything he wants he edicts by Executive Order or illegally anyway.

I don't understand why you profess yourself to be so smart and then make a statement like this. It proves the opposite. The republicans control the house, that is why nothing the president wants will make it through the house.
The republicans still control the senate with the filibuster. He can not do anything he wants with executive order. Why is that so hard to understand?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> KPG quote: 1) No one has stopped Obama from doing anything about creating jobs. Obama refuses to even meet with his own Jobs Council. Obama could pass anything he wants since he controls the WH, the legislative branch and the Dem controlled Senate AND everything he wants he edicts by Executive Order or illegally anyway.
> 
> I don't understand why you profess yourself to be so smart and then make a statement like this. It proves the opposite. The republicans control the house, that is why nothing the president wants will make it through the house.
> The republicans still control the senate with the filibuster. He can not do anything he wants with executive order. Why is that so hard to understand?


I did enjoy that post, President Obama controls the legislative branch AND the Dem controlled Senate. :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

sumpleby said:


> It is a small box that you attach to your TV using an HDMI cable. It allows you to access various channels depending on which model you have. For instance, you have access to things like Netflix (but you must have a Netflix account), Amazon, HuluPlus, various movie channels, news channels, TV programs. I have a lower-priced model that only gets 4 or 5 things, but only use it for Netflix and Amazon, so that's enough for me.


I recently bought a smart Tv. I had it for a couple months before I found out what it does. For instance Netflix is an app. Kewl!


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The United States does not have the system you describe. Fixed income is not what you described either. How many people actually do *their* part by applying _themselves_ and gain skills to qualify them for good compensation. More importantly, how many do regularly contribute to "savings" since you suggested that to be part of the 'initial' plan?
> 
> If folks *did* contribute to their savings (Americans are notorious for NOT saving as compared to other citizens around the world yet the USA remains one of the wealthiest nations), SS would not be thought of as "fixed income" but as a supplemental income stream from retirement savings and investments which is the proper definition as I stated prior. If one did not save that is not the fault of any business owner, employer or CEO. The responsibility is *always* upon ones self, never another. In America, for those who are not able to support ones self, assistance is always available and in place because Americans are the most generous people on the planet.
> 
> ...


Very well stated! :thumbup:


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I would suggest you stay away from reverse mortgages and look at financing your debt with a 2nd mortgage, equity line (often either with deductible interest) or a loan instead.


I was mulling over that same thing. My mortgage is paid off. No debt. When my husband died I paid off a car and credit card. Then only paid cash for everything. That was back on the 90s when a lot of ppl were borrowing too much.

A few years ago I had to w/d money out of 401k before 59.5 yrs to pay for a newer car and house repair. Now I have a big IRS tax bill where I make payments. I can't do any refinancing because I don't have a credit score from paying just cash. If I take more from 401k to pay tax bill that incurs more tax. A revolving door.

It's only me, so when I pass on, I don't need to leave my house to anyone. The kids have houses and good jobs.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

misssusan644 said:


> Probably, I've not heard him. The flavor is good. These foods are meant for emergency use and the reason to incorporate them in a non-disaster setting is so that if/when you must use them you are comfortable doing so.
> 
> When disaster strikes, a hot meal is preferable to an SOS bar, even though it might not taste exactly like a meal made from fresh ingredients.
> 
> ...


Thanks! I buy complete meals at the deli/hot food bar in the grocery store. I find it hard sometimes to stand for any length of time to cook. Leg problem and back problem. I'll give this food a try.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

NJG said:


> KPG quote: 1) No one has stopped Obama from doing anything about creating jobs. Obama refuses to even meet with his own Jobs Council. Obama could pass anything he wants since he controls the WH, the legislative branch and the Dem controlled Senate AND everything he wants he edicts by Executive Order or illegally anyway.
> 
> I don't understand why you profess yourself to be so smart and then make a statement like this.


Too much holiday eggnog?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Carole Murphy said:


> perhaps "we" whoever that is , is against the president's spending is because we are not in many trillions of dollars in debt over things we had no control or say.
> I am a republican and i take offense in your post, I also am Not a hyprocrite.


I'm sorry you take offense, but hypocrite has become the best word to describe the republicans is Washington. They vote no on food stamps to feed the poor and then vote yes to continue farm subsidies to wealthy farmers so wealthy farmers in congress can collect. Does that offend you? Bush put us in debt with two wars and a Medicare RX plan, all unfunded and we had no say over that either. Were you offended by that? When have you ever had a say about government spending? If Bush had not destroyed our economy, we would not be in the mess we are, but you don't blame him for anything. Everything did not start at the beginning of the Obama administration. We were in the worst recession since the great depression. Does that register with you at all? It has not registered with republicans in Washington, because on inauguration day, the republicans had a meeting and decided to BLOCK everything President Obama tried to do. Now I call that pretty hypocritical. They talk about working for the people and then do the opposite. They have worked for their party ever since President Obama took office. HYPOCRITES


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Dot-I said:


> Politics does NOT belong on a knitting site. Lets keep to needle work.


Then why are you reading this? It is your choice.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

chickkie said:


> It is impossible as every post seems to be political now. No one cares about anyone outside the US. I would never bring Canadian politics here, so I won't bother watching any more.


Hi chickkie, I care. Others probably do, too!


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Was it your 401K? Was it from a company you had worked for and left that employment? Were you more than 55 at the time? If the answer to all questions were yes you should have avoided the 10% penalty and just paid the tax on the amount you withdrew. They should have withheld 20% to pay some of the taxes on it. If it was in the last three years your tax return can be amended, if needed.
> 
> Anyone planning on withdrawing money from an IRA or 401K should talk to a tax advisor first. Then you will not be surprised when tax time comes. The managers of the 401Ks and IRAs do not know your tax situation and do not give good tax advise. You can easily pay 25% to 40% taxes and penalties on an early withdrawal. Many of my clients have found that out the hard way.


It's done so now I deal with it. I was thinking of the reverse mortgage thing.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The Reagan phone was a land line. The Obama phone is a cell phone, and it is misused. Why can someone get 3 when they are not qualified? They should only go to adults (18+) who are working or who are looking for work. They are paid with tax dollars. The tax is on the phone bill of the person who is responsible enough to pay their own bill. But it is still a tax. And the one paying it is a taxpayer.
> 
> The number of minutes and text messages that were mentioned is unnecessary. The 5 of us on the family plan (all adults), rarely use more than 500 min or 500 texts other than talking to each other, each month


Yes, Joey, the Reagan phone was a land line, maybe because they didn't have cell phones then, but it doesn't cost any more to provide cell phones than it does land lines. The money actually comes from a small fee added to most peoples monthly phone bills, called the Universal Service Fund fee
Here is a link you can all read the truth or you can continue to tell your lies. It is up to you. Did you complain about them when they were Bush phones? Here comes my favorite word again. Hypocrite.

http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Dot-I said:


> Politics does NOT belong on a knitting site. Lets keep to needle work.


Apparently Admin disagrees with you on that since the rules against politics and religion were rescinded some time ago.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> I'm so sorry, NJG. How hard that sounds! In the 90s the kids benefits ended when they graduated high school. At least we had enough to live.


Yes, I received benefits too when they were little, but when they went to school I went to work. My benefits would have stopped when my youngest turned 16. My oldest graduated in 86 and my younger one in 89 and they did not receive any help from SS for college. We did it all with grants and loans. Yes it was a tremendous help, especially that I was there with they till they went to school.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I did enjoy that post, President Obama controls the legislative branch AND the Dem controlled Senate. :roll: :roll: :roll:


Yes amazing, isn't it. Where do they get their information? :?: :?: :?:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> Thanks! I buy complete meals at the deli/hot food bar in the grocery store. I find it hard sometimes to stand for any length of time to cook. Leg problem and back problem. I'll give this food a try.


I am in the same boat and I love to cook. I have no discs left in my lower back, hence the back problem and have been told my knees are wore out. Probably knee replacement some day, but not yet. When I do cook I always make more than I need and then freeze in small portions. I have an elderly cousin with COPD so I try to do that for him too.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> That word is describing your self to a T. The website gives little details of the value of what the people are receiving. The cost of the phone is very little. It is the plan that goes with it, that is the problem. I was referring to a statement was made previously on this thread. Also how many phones have been given to people that are not eligible. From reports on the TV, the phone companies are paid extra for the number of phones they give away. And they don't seem to care if the recipients are eligible.
> 
> I have no problem with someone who is handicapped or destitute receiving a phone so they have contact with the outside world for an emergency, or work. It is the ones who misuse the system that are the problems. From the news reports, there are more people misusing than are the ones deserving the phone.


Yes there are people misusing the phones and I bet there were people misusing them during the Bush administration too. It is just so much more fun for you to call them Obama phones, though isn't it. No the word hypocrite really fits you.


----------



## sumnerusa (Nov 9, 2011)

sumpleby said:


> First of all, those seasonal jobs--like most jobs in this economy--have up to two hundred people applying for them. I know, because since I retired I have applied for quite a few and have seen the crowds. So the likelihood of getting them is not good. I recently applied for an event staff position at Angels Stadium (ticket taking, usher, etc.) and they had two interview groups that day--mine was comprised of 125 people, and it was heartbreaking to see people in their 20s-60s all hoping for the few part-time positions available, especially the older ones desperately dressed in their business suits and carrying their resumes.
> 
> Second, the government *can* create jobs to better the economy--look at the CCC and other federal jobs programs during the Depression.
> 
> ...


----------



## sumnerusa (Nov 9, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Yes, the war effort created a lot of jobs, esp. for women. How come the wars we've been in since 2003 weren't enough to protect us from this last recession?
> 
> And he did make the depression last longer by not spending enough money to finish it off. By the next round, he had learned better, and managed to create the New Deal.


He also called in all the the money and had the treasury print new bills. He wanted to see where all the money was......The rich had all their money in banks abroad ( just like they do now)....that's why so many banks closed- there was no money to be had. Calling in the money forced the rich to bring their money back to the states. He did not deliberately prolong the Depression
And, he was not responsible for the Depression. Why is it that the sitting president always gets blamed for his predecessors action?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> I expressed my religious view on this thread, but did not challenge yours. I expressed my political view to others of similar views on another thread, but did not challenge yours. I know that it is a fine distinction, but expressing your values is not a call for an attack. If my statement that I use prayer is a problem for you, you should move on. It isn't your business, it's mine.


I don't believe that what I replied to you was an attack.
Once again, I never mentioned your praying habits.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

sumnerusa said:


> He also called in all the the money and had the treasury print new bills. He wanted to see where all the money was......The rich had all their money in banks abroad ( just like they do now)....that's why so many banks closed- there was no money to be had. Calling in the money forced the rich to bring their money back to the states. He did not deliberately prolong the Depression
> And, he was not responsible for the Depression. Why is it that the sitting president always gets blamed for his predecessors action?


Because they are running out of legitimate things to blame him for?


----------



## vannavanna (Oct 15, 2012)

babsbarb said:


> Here's something for seniors to think about. Reverse Mortgages. I understand the fees on this can be high, but can be added on to the payback. Just something to consider if you are having a difficult time making ends meet on your current income.


Would that be the same as our UK (England) "Equity Release"? which I have? eg- my house was priced at £184,000. I was given £64,000 and now I don't pay rent until forever. Just depends on how long I live as to who comes off best!!
I have to keep house in good repair so there is the rub, so to speak. No hols as any spare goes on the house which is 78 yrs old----my twin!


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> That word is describing your self to a T. The website gives little details of the value of what the people are receiving. The cost of the phone is very little. It is the plan that goes with it, that is the problem. I was referring to a statement was made previously on this thread. Also how many phones have been given to people that are not eligible. From reports on the TV, the phone companies are paid extra for the number of phones they give away. And they don't seem to care if the recipients are eligible.
> 
> I have no problem with someone who is handicapped or destitute receiving a phone so they have contact with the outside world for an emergency, or work. It is the ones who misuse the system that are the problems. From the news reports, there are more people misusing than are the ones deserving the phone.


I have received many "just sign and mail" applications for a free cell phone and I have thrown them all away. Even Amerigroup, which manages Medicare in this state, sends applications. They offer a bonus of free reminders about your health care, sent to your phone. Yuk. I bought my own phone and pay $30 a month for unlimited data, text and 100 minutes. I use the internet a lot more than I make calls. And I keep my privacy.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> I don't believe that what I replied to you was an attack.
> Once again, I never mentioned your praying habits.


We don't even know who she was addressing that to, BP, since she didn't show us the courtesy of doing a quote. As if anyone cares if she prays or not. Odd that nobody responds to that with" this is a knitting site" ...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

sumnerusa said:


> He also called in all the the money and had the treasury print new bills. He wanted to see where all the money was......The rich had all their money in banks abroad ( just like they do now)....that's why so many banks closed- there was no money to be had. Calling in the money forced the rich to bring their money back to the states. He did not deliberately prolong the Depression
> And, he was not responsible for the Depression. Why is it that the sitting president always gets blamed for his predecessors action?


It's pretty funny, really, that the President gets blamed for anything revolving around the spending of money. Appropriations are done by Congress as you know. So many seem not to understand that.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

vannavanna said:


> Would that be the same as our UK (England) "Equity Release"? which I have? eg- my house was priced at £184,000. I was given £64,000 and now I don't pay rent until forever. Just depends on how long I live as to who comes off best!!
> I have to keep house in good repair so there is the rub, so to speak. No hols as any spare goes on the house which is 78 yrs old----my twin!


That certainly sounds similar, vannavanna.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Thank you, Joey, I was pretty sure that the interest deduction was not worth keeping a mortgage payment if one could pay it off. I couldn't remember exactly what my tax guy said about it though. It's a good thing to put that out there for people.


Why would I give money to people when I don't have to? I can make more money on the money I would give to the bank on my mortgage. My bills die with me. Many financial planners tell you not to pay off your mortgage when you get close to retirement.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Except that SS has never missed a payment, which means the admin. can get the money when it needs to.


Yet.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> Why would I give money to people when I don't have to? I can make more money on the money I would give to the bank on my mortgage. My bills die with me. Many financial planners tell you not to pay off your mortgage when you get close to retirement.


As I said before, it is your money. Do with it as you will, to each his own.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> If you are single, do you pay more than $6100 for real estate taxes, state income taxes, mortgage interest and charitable giving? for married filing joint, double that.
> 
> If that amount is less than $6100 (or $12,200 mfj). Any interest deduction is worthless. If it is close, the only saving is 10% to 15% of the amount you pay in mortgage interest.
> 
> If you only have Social Security as income, there will be no tax advantage. I question your statement about "the bills die with me." since you own a house, any bills will be paid by your estate. (probably by selling the house).


I am still working and if I have nothing in the estate and the condo isn't worth what I owe on it. What happens then. I don't plan on leaving any money laying around when I croak.

To your first question YES and besides why pay with pretty good money now when I can pay with worthless money later on.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> As I said before, it is your money. Do with it as you will, to each his own.


And again I'll ask you why would I wait until I have half of my income to pay twice for products that last?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

misssusan644 said:


> I have received many "just sign and mail" applications for a free cell phone and I have thrown them all away. Even Amerigroup, which manages Medicare in this state, sends applications. They offer a bonus of free reminders about your health care, sent to your phone. Yuk. I bought my own phone and pay $30 a month for unlimited data, text and 100 minutes. I use the internet a lot more than I make calls. And I keep my privacy.


Actually, if you rely on the Internet to communicate your privacy is probably a lost cause. As with cell phones, there are far fewer legal restrictions on monitoring folks via that medium than there are with land lines.

Really, the conspiracy theorists and anti-Obama folks dropped the ball here. They insist that the government is handing out cell phones like candy and are unhappy about the perceived expense--but I haven't heard any of them express concern over the privacy issues raised. Cell phones are cheap, easy to use, and reliable--but they are pretty open to government monitoring, if the government is so inclined

I see it now: Lifeline is an evil government plot to switch as many Americans as possible to a form of communication that can be closely monitored and disabled with the flick of a switch when Obama assumes total control over the nation and declares himself Dictator for Life! <grin>


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> And again I'll ask you why would I wait until I have half of my income to pay twice for products that last?


I have no idea why you would pay $9. for a house brand shirt at Kohl's. It seems our ideas of frugality are very dissimilar. 
Mine work for me, I hope that yours work for you.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Actually, if you rely on the Internet to communicate your privacy is probably a lost cause. As with cell phones, there are far fewer legal restrictions on monitoring folks via that medium than there are with land lines.
> 
> Really, the conspiracy theorists and anti-Obama folks dropped the ball here. They insist that the government is handing out cell phones like candy and are unhappy about the perceived expense--but I haven't heard any of them express concern over the privacy issues raised. Cell phones are cheap, easy to use, and reliable--but they are pretty open to government monitoring, if the government is so inclined
> 
> I see it now: Lifeline is an evil government plot to switch as many Americans as possible to a form of communication that can be closely monitored and disabled with the flick of a switch when Obama assumes total control over the nation and declares himself Dictator for Life! <grin>


Be careful what you wish for . <VBG>


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Actually, if you rely on the Internet to communicate your privacy is probably a lost cause. As with cell phones, there are far fewer legal restrictions on monitoring folks via that medium than there are with land lines.
> 
> Really, the conspiracy theorists and anti-Obama folks dropped the ball here. They insist that the government is handing out cell phones like candy and are unhappy about the perceived expense--but I haven't heard any of them express concern over the privacy issues raised. Cell phones are cheap, easy to use, and reliable--but they are pretty open to government monitoring, if the government is so inclined
> 
> I see it now: Lifeline is an evil government plot to switch as many Americans as possible to a form of communication that can be closely monitored and disabled with the flick of a switch when Obama assumes total control over the nation and declares himself Dictator for Life! <grin>


*************************
We haven't seen those complaints yet, susanmos2000, because those are just the poor people the government owns in the complainers' eyes. Most likely they have no right to privacy as WE WE WE pay for those instruments, DAMMIT!


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> I have no idea why you would pay $9. for a house brand shirt at Kohl's. It seems our ideas of frugality are very dissimilar.
> Mine work for me, I hope that yours work for you.


Because it will last and it's warm. Why would I pay $20 for one in 10 years when I have half the money I have now?


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> I have no idea why you would pay $9. for a house brand shirt at Kohl's. It seems our ideas of frugality are very dissimilar.
> Mine work for me, I hope that yours work for you.


At the very least I'll still have the shirt on my back in retirement. Clean clothes, sweet smelling armpits, clean hair, clean toilets etc.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

winding road,


Good for you sounds like a good plan to me. :thumbup:


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Actually, if you rely on the Internet to communicate your privacy is probably a lost cause. As with cell phones, there are far fewer legal restrictions on monitoring folks via that medium than there are with land lines.
> 
> Really, the conspiracy theorists and anti-Obama folks dropped the ball here. They insist that the government is handing out cell phones like candy and are unhappy about the perceived expense--but I haven't heard any of them express concern over the privacy issues raised. Cell phones are cheap, easy to use, and reliable--but they are pretty open to government monitoring, if the government is so inclined
> 
> I see it now: Lifeline is an evil government plot to switch as many Americans as possible to a form of communication that can be closely monitored and disabled with the flick of a switch when Obama assumes total control over the nation and declares himself Dictator for Life! <grin>


There is very little privacy over all, but I try to hang onto whatever I can.

It's amazing what you can find out about someone just by checking the tax rolls. All you need is a name OR an address. In a nearby county you could also see a floorplan of the building (great for criminals). That has now changed but recently I was curious about a nearby historic home, so I checked the tax rolls. The home was built in 1890, etc. History, taxes, improvements....it's all there. Do a search on your home.

Goodbye privacy!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> *************************
> We haven't seen those complaints yet, susanmos2000, because those are just the poor people the government owns in the complainers' eyes. Most likely they have no right to privacy as WE WE WE pay for those instruments, DAMMIT!


Yes, we do--and I have no problem with paying an extra $2.50 or so per month so the economically disadvantaged can access help in an emergency. When my mother fell and broke her hip she lay unattended on the floor of her apartment for two days because she had no cell phone, couldn't crawl to the land line, and was too weak to cry out for help. A couple of dollars a month is nothing if it prevents tragedies like that.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> winding road,
> 
> Good for you sounds like a good plan to me. :thumbup:


My goal is to have enough supplies that don't "spoil" to last me for 10 years when I retire. For example I use Britta water filters in a pitcher. I change them every 3 months so I use 4 a year. They are expensive and will get more expensive in coming years. So my goal is to have 40 of them in stock when I retire.

I label anything I open, dishwasher cubes, laundry detergent, dryer sheets, shampoo, soap etc and then I know how long each one lasts and how many I need for a year. Multiply by 10 and I know what kinda stash I need.

I'm also doing that with craft supplies. Yarn, thread, knitting needles, patterns ( I rarely buy patterns too many freebies) etc.

I've also up graded my kitchen supplies. Baking dishes, silverware, pots and pans, etc.

I hate shopping. I go for what I want if they don't have it I come home. And when bad weather hits I don't have to run to the store for anything.

I haven't bought TP, PT, deodorant, shampoo, soap etc in the grocery store or WalMart or Target ( I wouldn't set foot in that store for anything) in years.

I have underwear, towels, washclothes, sheets, pillows, blankets etc all in space bags. I actually bought 11 new pairs of shoes and 2 pairs of boots this fall. All at half price. I will never need to buy shoes again in my life time. LOL.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

misssusan644 said:


> There is very little privacy over all, but I try to hang onto whatever I can.
> 
> It's amazing what you can find out about someone just by checking the tax rolls. All you need is a name OR an address. In a nearby county you could also see a floorplan of the building (great for criminals). That has now changed but recently I was curious about a nearby historic home, so I checked the tax rolls. The home was built in 1890, etc. History, taxes, improvements....it's all there. Do a search on your home.
> 
> Goodbye privacy!


www.zillow.com


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> At the very least I'll still have the shirt on my back in retirement. Clean clothes, sweet smelling armpits, clean hair, clean toilets etc.


My last 5 shirts cost me $2.50 and under; all with tags still on L.L. Bean, Land's End, and CW Sport. None of them have shrunk up three inches in the washer and dryer. None of them have had to be given to Goodwill because of a lousy fit. 
None of that has anything to do with continuing to pay interest on a great amount of money, however. 
So, I repeat, I believe for the 4th time...it is your money, spend it as you wish. I was making a suggestion not issuing an order. What I do know is that I have been retired for more than three years and I am not feeling any anxiety about finances. :lol:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

WindingRoad said:


> My goal is to have enough supplies that don't "spoil" to last me for 10 years when I retire. For example I use Britta water filters in a pitcher. I change them every 3 months so I use 4 a year. They are expensive and will get more expensive in coming years. So my goal is to have 40 of them in stock when I retire.
> 
> I label anything I open, dishwasher cubes, laundry detergent, dryer sheets, shampoo, soap etc and then I know how long each one lasts and how many I need for a year. Multiply by 10 and I know what kinda stash I need.
> 
> ...


You certainly are organized! I wish I had the ability to keep track of details like that--it's always been my dream to have a house that runs like clockwork, but unfortunately I'm the kind who pays the bills "around the twentieth", had to sniff the milk to see if it's still fresh, and puts off the annual tax forms until the last possible moment.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> You certainly are organized! I wish I had the ability to keep track of details like that--it's always been my dream to have a house that runs like clockwork, but unfortunately I'm the kind who pays the bills "around the twentieth", had to sniff the milk to see if it's still fresh, and puts off the annual tax forms until the last possible moment.


Oh I'm not that organized trust me. It's a work in progress. I just keep a sharpie close by to write on things. I haven't figured out how to keep the date on a bar of soap yet. But I'm working on it.

I make a grid on my computer with my bills. I make 2 a year. Jan-June and then July - Dec. As a bill comes in I put the amt. and date due in the appropriate box and then when I get paid I check my grid. Several of my bills come automatically to my checking account and by e-mail. I love that. No paper bills hardly. Still trying to talk some companies to go that route locally.

I buy at the big box stores and use every coupon I can come across. BJ's ( like Sam's club or Costco) lets you use manufacturers coupons plus their's on the same product. So if BJ's has a coupon on TP for $2 off and I have a coupon for $2 off I get the full $4. Some times you have to spend money to make or save money.


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> My goal is to have enough supplies that don't "spoil" to last me for 10 years when I retire. For example I use Britta water filters in a pitcher. I change them every 3 months so I use 4 a year. They are expensive and will get more expensive in coming years. So my goal is to have 40 of them in stock when I retire.
> 
> I label anything I open, dishwasher cubes, laundry detergent, dryer sheets, shampoo, soap etc and then I know how long each one lasts and how many I need for a year. Multiply by 10 and I know what kinda stash I need.
> 
> ...


You want control, I understand that. We all do. What happens if you live 25 years past retirement? Bodies change, including shoe sizes. Everything we have is brought to us by trucks. The infrastructure in this country is not rock solid. If the grid goes down, there won't be any water coming out of your faucet for you to filter and no power to run your washing machine. I suggest you consider the Amish and how they manage day to day life without electricity.

Do you have a Katadyn or Big Berkey water filtration system that will handle pond or river water? How about a solar oven? I have a James Handwasher (Lehman's.com). Do you have what you need to live without electricity? That's the big threat we face that could bring this country down. No access to banks, gas, and grocery stores.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> My last 5 shirts cost me $2.50 and under; all with tags still on L.L. Bean, Land's End, and CW Sport. None of them have shrunk up three inches in the washer and dryer. None of them have had to be given to Goodwill because of a lousy fit.
> None of that has anything to do with continuing to pay interest on a great amount of money, however.
> So, I repeat, I believe for the 4th time...it is your money, spend it as you wish. I was making a suggestion not issuing an order. What I do know is that I have been retired for more than three years and I am not feeling any anxiety about finances. :lol:


I wouldn't buy from any of them. I live in Maine I know what LL Bean has to offer. JUNK. Their turtlenecks are horrible. Stain all up etc. Land's End are so short that you probably don't notice they have shrunk.

Again why would I pay off my mortgage with money that has some worth when I can pay it off with worthless money later on.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

misssusan644 said:


> You want control, I understand that. We all do. What happens if you live 25 years past retirement? Bodies change, including shoe sizes. Everything we have is brought to us by trucks. The infrastructure in this country is not rock solid. If the grid goes down, there won't be any water coming out of your faucet for you to filter and no power to run your washing machine. I suggest you consider the Amish and how they manage day to day life without electricity.
> 
> Do you have a Katadyn or Big Berkey water filtration system that will handle pond or river water? How about a solar oven? I have a James Handwasher (Lehman's.com). Do you have what you need to live without electricity? That's the big threat we face that could bring this country down. No access to banks, gas, and grocery stores.


Are you saying I should just fritter away my money now and hope for the best later on. My 10 years was an estimate. I know where Oregon is and how to get there.

I don't own a TV so no cable bill. My electricity bill averages under $40 all year long.

If I have a good stash why would I need to go to the gas station or the grocery store. That's my whole point.

I'm not worried about the loss of electricity. I live in Maine. We lose it often, although we didn't lose it this time in my area. We have another storm coming though. Things could change

I see old people in the store buying one roll of TP. Do you know how much that ONE roll of TP costs them compared to my stash.

Saving isn't just putting money in the bank. Saving is buying things and putting them away for a rainy day. Other than some things that were recently invented can you name many things that are cheaper now than 20 years ago.

I paid more for my SUV than I did for my first house. I don't see that changing.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> My last 5 shirts cost me $2.50 and under; all with tags still on L.L. Bean, Land's End, and CW Sport. None of them have shrunk up three inches in the washer and dryer. None of them have had to be given to Goodwill because of a lousy fit.
> None of that has anything to do with continuing to pay interest on a great amount of money, however.
> So, I repeat, I believe for the 4th time...it is your money, spend it as you wish. I was making a suggestion not issuing an order. What I do know is that I have been retired for more than three years and I am not feeling any anxiety about finances. :lol:


Who's says I owe a great amount of money to anyone. As I said once before my mortgage with my property taxes is $526.26 amonth. Oh I forgot I pay some of that for mortgage insurance just in case I can't pay my mortgage due to loss of job or injury etc.

See........ when I retire I'll pay $0.00 for shirts.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

misssusan644 said:


> You want control, I understand that. We all do. What happens if you live 25 years past retirement? Bodies change, including shoe sizes. Everything we have is brought to us by trucks. The infrastructure in this country is not rock solid. If the grid goes down, there won't be any water coming out of your faucet for you to filter and no power to run your washing machine. I suggest you consider the Amish and how they manage day to day life without electricity.
> 
> Do you have a Katadyn or Big Berkey water filtration system that will handle pond or river water? How about a solar oven? I have a James Handwasher (Lehman's.com). Do you have what you need to live without electricity? That's the big threat we face that could bring this country down. No access to banks, gas, and grocery stores.


Reminds me of the immediate pre-Y2K era, when folks worried about all the computers and electronic devices in the world failing when we moved from 1999 to 2000.

That wasn't something I was at all concerned about, but I did enjoy reading the preparedness literature that circulated around that time. A lot of it was very sensible and gave good advice to those who wanted to prepare for living "off the grid" on a just-in-case basis.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

WindingRoad said:


> Saving isn't just putting money in the bank. Saving is buying things and putting them away for a rainy day.


...and using them in a timely fashion! That's always been my weak point. Here in earthquake country (California) we're always being advised to stash some food, water, and emergency supplies like flashlights and such. Very reasonable and not too difficult. The problem I have is using the canned goods before they expire, changing the water in the bottles, remembering to check the flashlight batteries etc etc.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> ...and using them in a timely fashion! That's always been my weak point. Here in earthquake country (California) we're always being advised to stash some food, water, and emergency supplies like flashlights and such. Very reasonable and not too difficult. The problem I have is using the canned goods before they expire, changing the water in the bottles, remembering to check the flashlight batteries etc etc.


GF have I gotta come out there and help you? :hunf:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Carole Murphy said:


> more like an adult commune instead of a hippie one. Main problem would be, what site? have to be big enough for all the walkers, scooters, wheel chairs, etc. guess I'm really not ready yet,


I have a dear friend with an extremely large home who has already suggested my husband and I join he and his wife and one other couple and all live together under one roof in our senior years. We have discussed pooling our assets, living arrangements and resources and hire our own team of drivers, doctors, physical therapists, etc. It is still in the early stages of discussion but it does seem very interesting rather than each couple relying only upon themselves, their children or public living facilities.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Carole Murphy said:


> perhaps "we" whoever that is , is against the president's spending is because we are not in many trillions of dollars in debt over things we had no control or say.
> I am a republican and i take offense in your post, I also am Not a hyprocrite.


Me too.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Me too.


Count me in.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> The Reagan phone was a land line. The Obama phone is a cell phone, and it is misused. Why can someone get 3 when they are not qualified? They should only go to adults (18+) who are working or who are looking for work. They are paid with tax dollars. The tax is on the phone bill of the person who is responsible enough to pay their own bill. But it is still a tax. And the one paying it is a taxpayer.
> 
> The number of minutes and text messages that were mentioned is unnecessary. The 5 of us on the family plan (all adults), rarely use more than 500 min or 500 texts other than talking to each other, each month


All true- NJG has a habit of posting lies and false info always to the benefit of her party; Democrat. All taxpayers should take a look at all the fees, charges and taxes they pay on their utility bills, especially phone, to realize what taxes they pay so everyone gets their free "Obama Phone." Except, of course, those who pay the taxes/fees/charges don't get the free Obama Phone.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I have a dear friend with an extremely large home who has already suggested my husband and I join he and his wife and one other couple and all live together under one roof in our senior years. We have discussed pooling our assets, living arrangements and resources and hire our own team of drivers, doctors, physical therapists, etc. It is still in the early stages of discussion but it does seem very interesting rather than each couple relying only upon themselves, their children or public living facilities.


Sounds like an interesting proposition, worthy of further research. Good luck.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

WindingRoad said:


> GF have I gotta come out there and help you? :hunf:


Heehee--maybe so! My husband tries at times, but truthfully he's not much better at keeping things organized or working out a logical system than his dear spouse. <grin>

Oddly enough, our son seems to be a natural about organization. He's only twelve but keeps his possessions in reasonable order, closes doors and cupboards automatically, and always remember to hang up his jacket. I've always assumed that organization, like punctuality, was an inherited trait--if so it sure skipped a generation as far as his father and I are concerned!


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> All true- NJG has a habit of posting lies and false info always to the benefit of her party; Democrat. All taxpayers should take a look at all the fees, charges and taxes they pay on their utility bills, especially phone, to realize what taxes they pay so everyone gets their free "Obama Phone." Except, of course, those who pay the taxes/fees/charges don't get the free Obama Phone.


Funny that you should mention the phone bill! We just got ours yesterday and looked at the various taxes, fees, service charges attached. They amounted to almost 1/3 of the bill!!! :shock: We pay our bills so that some others can abuse their freebies!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> KPG quote: 1) No one has stopped Obama from doing anything about creating jobs. Obama refuses to even meet with his own Jobs Council. Obama could pass anything he wants since he controls the WH, the legislative branch and the Dem controlled Senate AND everything he wants he edicts by Executive Order or illegally anyway.
> 
> I don't understand why you profess yourself to be so smart and then make a statement like this. It proves the opposite. The republicans control the house, that is why nothing the president wants will make it through the house.
> The republicans still control the senate with the filibuster. He can not do anything he wants with executive order. Why is that so hard to understand?


Perhaps, someday, you'll understand how the USA Congress, a filibuster and the USA economy works. I'm not willing to take my time to explain my comments to you particularly when you have used the last few months to criticize, insult and shout your hatred to me.

BTW: I have NEVER professed "that I'm so smart" and am once again offended by how you treat KPers and me repeatedly. Leave us all alone.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> I was mulling over that same thing. My mortgage is paid off. No debt. When my husband died I paid off a car and credit card. Then only paid cash for everything. That was back on the 90s when a lot of ppl were borrowing too much.
> 
> A few years ago I had to w/d money out of 401k before 59.5 yrs to pay for a newer car and house repair. Now I have a big IRS tax bill where I make payments. I can't do any refinancing because I don't have a credit score from paying just cash. If I take more from 401k to pay tax bill that incurs more tax. A revolving door.
> 
> It's only me, so when I pass on, I don't need to leave my house to anyone. The kids have houses and good jobs.


Because you HAD a mortgage, car loans and credit card debts, you DO have a credit score. Your credit score is based on your history of borrowing and repayment. In fact, because you paid all your obligations, mostly likely on-time, you probably have a good credit score (>700).

Talk to some lenders and look into an equity line or another mortgage. I highly suggest no w/drawals from your 401(K) plan as you understand the taxes and penalties for doing that.

Every American is allowed a free credit score report each year from each of the top three credit reporting agencies. You should contact them to learn your score so you are informed and have leverage when speaking to lenders. The higher your score, the better rates you can negotiate. Best of luck to you!

Contact Equifax or Experian, etc., for your free reports.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Hi chickkie, I care. Others probably do, too!


I care. But it is impossible to discuss the US Social Security systems without talking about the US government.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> Apparently Admin disagrees with you on that since the rules against politics and religion were rescinded some time ago.


Except the rule about not using political persons in your avatars as Jelun2 is doing presently. That rule remains intact as far as I know.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> We don't even know who she was addressing that to, BP, since she didn't show us the courtesy of doing a quote. As if anyone cares if she prays or not. Odd that nobody responds to that with" this is a knitting site" ...


Yes we do. Bratty Patty asked her and Knit Crazy answered. I would appreciate the courtesy of the truth in your posts.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> Why would I give money to people when I don't have to? I can make more money on the money I would give to the bank on my mortgage. My bills die with me. Many financial planners tell you not to pay off your mortgage when you get close to retirement.


I disagree. You shouldn't have a mortgage when near retirement if you planned your finances probably during your earning years. Also why give your enormous interest money on your mortgage to your lender when you don't have to?

There is a incorrect and correct way to pre-pay a mortgage to avoid all the interest you agreed to pay that you don't have to.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Yes, we do--and I have no problem with paying an extra $2.50 or so per month so the economically disadvantaged can access help in an emergency. When my mother fell and broke her hip she lay unattended on the floor of her apartment for two days because she had no cell phone, couldn't crawl to the land line, and was too weak to cry out for help. A couple of dollars a month is nothing if it prevents tragedies like that.


Why did you allow your mother to live without a cell phone, wireless phone or emergency device? If you're willing to pay $2.50 per month for others, why did you choose to ignore your own mother and not take care of her during her latter years? That isn't even humane.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I disagree. You shouldn't have a mortgage when near retirement if you planned your finances probably during your earning years. Also why give your enormous interest money on your mortgage to your lender when you don't have to?
> 
> There is a incorrect and correct way to pre-pay a mortgage to avoid all the interest you agreed to pay that you don't have to.


At 3% interest I make more putting money in my 401k than I pay in interest. Because I get 6% from my employer. Again my mortgage will die with me. In the mean time I plan to live.

Again why give them money that has some value ( now) as opposed to valueless money later on?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> My goal is to have enough supplies that don't "spoil" to last me for 10 years when I retire. For example I use Britta water filters in a pitcher. I change them every 3 months so I use 4 a year. They are expensive and will get more expensive in coming years. So my goal is to have 40 of them in stock when I retire.
> 
> I label anything I open, dishwasher cubes, laundry detergent, dryer sheets, shampoo, soap etc and then I know how long each one lasts and how many I need for a year. Multiply by 10 and I know what kinda stash I need.
> 
> ...


Wow - what a system! You must need lots of storage space for your stash though?


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I disagree. You shouldn't have a mortgage when near retirement if you planned your finances probably during your earning years. Also why give your enormous interest money on your mortgage to your lender when you don't have to?
> 
> There is a incorrect and correct way to pre-pay a mortgage to avoid all the interest you agreed to pay that you don't have to.


If the dog hadn't stop to Poop he'd have caught the fox. I was a single mother. etc. Get the picture.

Besides I bought a condo I could afford. $526.26 mortgage, insurance, and taxes is pretty good. Actually, my mortgage has gone down every year I've owned this place. And the "experts" told me not to have an adjustable mortgage. The thing they didn't know was that my mortgage can only go up 1% in any year and only up 5% over the course of the loan.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Why did you allow your mother to live without a cell phone, wireless phone or emergency device? If you're willing to pay $2.50 per month for others, when, you chose to ignore your own mother and not take care of her during her latter years isn'e even humane.


Why not gather information before you judge? That was in the late 80s, before cell phones were widely available and, as my mother was still in her forties and working as a cook, we never dreamed she'd need something like Life Alert.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Wow - what a system! You must need lots of storage space for your stash though?


Space bags are wonderful inventions. I have 3 closets. One double one single. And lots of space under the beds. I have 2 closet downstairs too. The last time I counted I have 20 boxes of trash bags (130 bags per box). I plan to keep up this strategy right up to and including retirement. I'm not touching my 401k or my 403b now. Leaving them there to earn money. And make money. Both of which they are doing as we type.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> Count me in.


Definitely - 'cause you're the lady with all the stash! :-D


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Jokim said:


> Sounds like an interesting proposition, worthy of further research. Good luck.


Thank you! We do all get along well and it is another alternative.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Definitely - 'cause you're the lady with all the stash! :-D


I know you just want to borrow something. :XD:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Jokim said:


> Funny that you should mention the phone bill! We just got ours yesterday and looked at the various taxes, fees, service charges attached. They amounted to almost 1/3 of the bill!!! :shock: We pay our bills so that some others can abuse their freebies!


Yep!


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Why did you allow your mother to live without a cell phone, wireless phone or emergency device? If you're willing to pay $2.50 per month for others, why did you choose to ignore your own mother and not take care of her during her latter years? That isn't even humane.


Good grief!!! Have you nothing better to do than reread posts in search of things to condemn people for? I'm sure she sat down and plotted on how to abuse her mother, setting up a way to have her fall and break her hip so she could be allowed to suffer unattended. Let's get real; you appear to be going out of your way to find things to bicker about with whomsoever. What's your point, other than to show you're feeling hostile for unknown reasons? Targeting people's guilt feelings and rubbing their noses in them is not admirable.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> At 3% interest I make more putting money in my 401k than I pay in interest. Because I get 6% from my employer. Again my mortgage will die with me. In the mean time I plan to live.
> 
> Again why give them money that has some value ( now) as opposed to valueless money later on?


I don't pay interest on my mortgage, I earn the rate I agreed to pay on my money by pre-paying it properly and I put the money I don't pay in interest into investments that earn more than the interest rate I agreed to pay. Contributing at least 6% of your earnings to your 401(K) makes sense because your employer matches.

I still would pay off your mortgage based on the info you have outlined to date.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Thank you! We do all get along well and it is another alternative.


I know of married and single, adult siblings, living in this arrangement. That's family, but, with non-relations, it might be different given the varied background make-up of the group. Before going into this set-up, lot of things would have to be taken care-off, settled and agreed upon.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I don't pay interest on my mortgage, I earn the rate I agreed to pay on my money by pre-paying it properly and I put the money I don't pay in interest into investments that earn more than the interest rate I agreed to pay. Contributing at least 6% of your earnings to your 401(K) makes sense because your employer matches.
> 
> I still would get pay off your mortgage.


I'm putting in 12%. It makes no sense to pay off the mortgage. I get more for that money now by stocking up. When I retire and don't have to pay as much tax on my withdrawals that's when I'll sock money onto the mortgage.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

Jokim said:


> I know of married and single, adult siblings, living in this arrangement. That's family, but, with non-relations, it might be different given the varied background make-up of the group. Before going into this set-up, lot of things would have to be taken care-off, settled and agreed upon, before hand.


Personally, I wouldn't subject anyone to my ways. LOL


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yep!


I don't know how one could abuse the free phone offer. If you are a participant of any government program then you qualify. But you must provide documentation that matches the info they have on file.

Where is the opportunity for abuse? It's a basic phone. Not worth drooling over.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> If the dog hadn't stop to Poop he'd have caught the fox. I was a single mother. etc. Get the picture.
> 
> Besides I bought a condo I could afford. $526.26 mortgage, insurance, and taxes is pretty good. Actually, my mortgage has gone down every year I've owned this place. And the "experts" told me not to have an adjustable mortgage. The thing they didn't know was that my mortgage can only go up 1% in any year and only up 5% over the course of the loan.


Of course, your mortgage goes down every year, you are paying down the principal each month unless you have an interest only mortgage. In that case, it wouldn't go down either. Very poor choice of a mortgage, BTW.

I agree with interest rates at all-time lows for the past decade or so, I suggest a fixed-rate mortgage for most. Any mortgage lender and especially YOU must know the terms of YOUR mortgage. If your rate can go up 1% annually and 5% over the lifetime of the loan, you do *not * have a fixed-rate mortgage. Because you like to live conservatively and in control and have great concern with the time-value of money, I would suggest you re-finace and get a fixed rate mortgage.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Of course, your mortgage goes down every year, you are paying down the principal each month unless you have an interest only mortgage. In that case, it wouldn't go down either. Very poor choice of a mortgage, BTW.
> 
> I agree with interest rates at all-time lows for the past decade or so, I suggest a fixed-rate mortgage for most. Any mortgage lender and especially YOU must know the terms of YOUR mortgage. If your rate can go up 1% annually and 5% over the lifetime of the loan, you do *not * have a fixed-rate mortgage.


I didn't say I had a fixed rate. And it's gone down every year since I bought the place with my variable rate. 13 years in a row. Even with increases in property taxes. LOL...

I'm paying about $100 a month on principal. That don't make it go down very fast.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Good grief!!! Have you nothing better to do than reread posts in search of things to condemn people for? I'm sure she sat down and plotted on how to abuse her mother, setting up a way to have her fall and break her hip so she could be allowed to suffer unattended. Let's get real; you appear to be going out of your way to find things to bicker about with whomsoever. What's your point, other than to show you're feeling hostile for unknown reasons? Targeting people's guilt feelings and rubbing their noses in them is not admirable.


It's ultra-conservative guilt talking, SAMkewel. People who don't want to pay an extra $2.50 a month to support Lifeline because some chiselers take advantage of the system know in their hearts that they're being cruel and selfish.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> I know you just want to borrow something. :XD:


I'm not stupid; I know I'll be well fed and clothed and have most conveniences.

I just hope we wear the same sizes. :-D


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I'm not stupid; I know I'll be well fed and clothed and have most conveniences.
> 
> I just hope we wear the same sizes. :-D


So you don't want my TP?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> Good grief!!! Have you nothing better to do than reread posts in search of things to condemn people for? I'm sure she sat down and plotted on how to abuse her mother, setting up a way to have her fall and break her hip so she could be allowed to suffer unattended. Let's get real; you appear to be going out of your way to find things to bicker about with whomsoever. What's your point, other than to show you're feeling hostile for unknown reasons? Targeting people's guilt feelings and rubbing their noses in them is not admirable.


It was and regularly is Susan who condemns other posters and than gave an example of her mother's difficulties in order to make all others feel it necessary to pay always higher taxes and feel guilt for her mother or whoever. Susan regularly posts guilt trips of how Repubs never have compassion for folks, refuse to feed or care for the poor and never contribute money or services to those in need.

Susan posted the recent "guilt trip" not me.

If you read Susan's posts, her posts always chastise anyone that is not of her political party and me.

BTW: I did not 're-read' anything. I'm reading and commenting as anyone would in chronological order.

Didn't you just do the same?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Jokim said:


> I know of married and single, adult siblings, living in this arrangement. That's family, but, with non-relations, it might be different given the varied background make-up of the group. Before going into this set-up, lot of things would have to be taken care-off, settled and agreed upon.


Agreed; it is something that requires lots of discussion, honesty, planning and agreement.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> I didn't say I had a fixed rate. And it's gone down every year since I bought the place with my variable rate. 13 years in a row. Even with increases in property taxes. LOL...
> 
> I'm paying about $100 a month on principal. That don't make it go down very fast.


Oh, I know. You did say you have an adjustable rate mortgage. But, I said, I agreed with the "experts" that told you to take a fixed rate mortgage. That's all.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> So you don't want my TP?


Nope - I want my own!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> I'm putting in 12%. It makes no sense to pay off the mortgage. I get more for that money now by stocking up. When I retire and don't have to pay as much tax on my withdrawals that's when I'll sock money onto the mortgage.


That's an excellent percentage to invest - good on you!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> It was and regularly is Susan who condemns other posters and than gave an example of her mother's difficulties in order to make all others feel it necessary to pay always higher taxes and feel guilt for her mother. She regularly posts guilt trips of how Repubs never have compassion for folks, refuse to feed or care for the poor and never contribute money or services to those in need.
> 
> Susan posted the recent "guilt trip" not me.
> 
> ...


Guess that stocking full of coal you received for Christmas didn't convince you to change your unpleasant ways, KPG. No doubt Santa will try something else next year--possibly that brown smelly stuff that's shoveled out of the reindeer stalls.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Carole Murphy said:


> more like an adult commune instead of a hippie one. Main problem would be, what site? have to be big enough for all the walkers, scooters, wheel chairs, etc. guess I'm really not ready yet,


It's not a bad idea. One that can definitely be expanded upon. Less clutter and furniture, double function pieces, wider doorways to accommodate wheelchairs and walkers, etc. I think the adult commune, with varying ages, could take root. Times are changing and people need to change as well.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Oh, I know. You did say you have an adjustable rate mortgage. But, I said, I agreed with the "experts" that told you to take a fixed rate mortgage. That's all.


And they were wrong. LOL. I started at like 7% back in 2000.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> That's an excellent percentage to invest - good on you!


I'm still not at the max. I'll go up another 1% this month.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I care. But it is impossible to discuss the US Social Security systems without talking about the US government.


This did not start out as a discussion about the US Social Security system, it started out as a discussion about fixed incomes. There were several people from other countries also living on a fixed income. Everybody was coming together over a common issue, fixed incomes, and discussing ways they manage and vents they had. It wasn't until some people decided to make it about political issues that the US system was soley discussed, excluding those in other countries. Then we wonder, as us citizens, why other countries view us as selfish or "exclusive".


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> We don't even know who she was addressing that to, BP, since she didn't show us the courtesy of doing a quote. As if anyone cares if she prays or not. Odd that nobody responds to that with" this is a knitting site" ...


Odd that you care who prays or not. Odd that you can't let people express their view of political issues without attacking the messenger. However, I get it. This topic began as an effort to find ways to deal with the government's inability to let senior's lives maintain some dignity, and became an attack on conservatives. What a surprise! If Obama is such a great president, he could have fixed this problem when he had power over both houses. If Obama had an economic plan, the recession would have ended by the time the Republicans re-took the House due to Obamacare. You Liberals are rabid haters. I avoid haters, so no need to attack again. I don't care about your political frustrations, your efforts to communize seniors, or your denial of reality.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> This did not start out as a discussion about the US Social Security system, it started out as a discussion about fixed incomes. There were several people from other countries also living on a fixed income. Everybody was coming together over a common issue, fixed incomes, and discussing ways they manage and vents they had. It wasn't until some people decided to make it about political issues that the US system was soley discussed, excluding those in other countries. Then we wonder, as us citizens, why other countries view us as selfish or "exclusive".


Are we getting into their politics?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> This did not start out as a discussion about the US Social Security system, it started out as a discussion about fixed incomes. There were several people from other countries also living on a fixed income. Everybody was coming together over a common issue, fixed incomes, and discussing ways they manage and vents they had. It wasn't until some people decided to make it about political issues that the US system was soley discussed, excluding those in other countries. Then we wonder, as us citizens, why other countries view us as selfish or "exclusive".


Your statement is not accurate. The title of the thread is "Fixed Income" but from the original post it has been about Social Security as IF SS *is* Fixed Income. It is not which I have stated repeatedly. The thread has always been about living on SS and not Fixed Income.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

WindingRoad said:


> My goal is to have enough supplies that don't "spoil" to last me for 10 years when I retire. For example I use Britta water filters in a pitcher. I change them every 3 months so I use 4 a year. They are expensive and will get more expensive in coming years. So my goal is to have 40 of them in stock when I retire.
> 
> I label anything I open, dishwasher cubes, laundry detergent, dryer sheets, shampoo, soap etc and then I know how long each one lasts and how many I need for a year. Multiply by 10 and I know what kinda stash I need.
> 
> ...


You sound like a well organized person with a good long term plan for your retirement. After all, retirement isn't just about the money in one's bank account(s). I imagine that the people giving you a hard time are the ones that have a vision of you sitting in front of your "retirement stash" with your guns drawn and ready for action should anyone get too close. They obviously have nothing better to do than demean what you are doing.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Guess that stocking full of coal you received for Christmas didn't convince you to change your unpleasant ways, KPG. No doubt Santa will try something else next year--possibly that brown smelly stuff that's shoveled out of the reindeer stalls.


. and here we have the exact thing I described to SAMKewel - a post of Susan's worthy of admiration? I think not.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> This did not start out as a discussion about the US Social Security system, it started out as a discussion about fixed incomes. There were several people from other countries also living on a fixed income. Everybody was coming together over a common issue, fixed incomes, and discussing ways they manage and vents they had. It wasn't until some people decided to make it about political issues that the US system was soley discussed, excluding those in other countries. Then we wonder, as us citizens, why other countries view us as selfish or "exclusive".


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> You sound like a well organized person with a good long term plan for your retirement. After all, retirement isn't just about the money in one's bank account(s). I imagine that the people giving you a hard time are the ones that have a vision of you sitting in front of your "retirement stash" with your guns drawn and ready for action should anyone get too close. They obviously have nothing better to do than demean what you are doing.


Ask me if I care what someone on the other end of an internet connection thinks. LOL... I've been on my own since I was 18. Foster kid. Making close to 6 figures and I'm set for retirement with SS as my sole means of income. And I'll make out just fine. That's what gets in some people's craw.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I don't pay interest on my mortgage, I earn the rate I agreed to pay on my money by pre-paying it properly and I put the money I don't pay in interest into investments that earn more than the interest rate I agreed to pay. Contributing at least 6% of your earnings to your 401(K) makes sense because your employer matches.
> 
> I still would pay off your mortgage based on the info you have outlined to date.


ETA: This should say, "I don't pay much interest on my mortgage,  "


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> ...and using them in a timely fashion! That's always been my weak point. Here in earthquake country (California) we're always being advised to stash some food, water, and emergency supplies like flashlights and such. Very reasonable and not too difficult. The problem I have is using the canned goods before they expire, changing the water in the bottles, remembering to check the flashlight batteries etc etc.


Do it twice a year when you change the clock or the batteries in your smoke alarms. Rotate the canned goods and change the water in the bottles. Our problem in tornado country is where to store the stuff, if you don't have a tornado shelter. The homes in my area don't have basements.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> From one of your previous posts you said you are paying mortgage insurance. So that must mean you have not paid down 20% of the sales price. At the present time the premiums paid are deductible on your taxes, but that can change. Is all of your 401K invested in the stock market? Not a good idea. What happens if it crashes?
> 
> At the time my husband retired in 1999, we lost more than 30% of the value of his 401k. We were able to wait until it regained plus a little, took it out paid the tax, and invested in a CD at 4.5%. If we would have left it in the 401K we would have lost half in the next crash. On Dec 31st. we took the first withdrawal from those funds for a new truck. We only used a little over half of the amount.
> 
> ...


My post did not mean I didn't put 20% down on my condo. Ever hear of the definition of the word assume.

I am paying an insurance I took out. It's not a government thingy.

If you'd read all my posts you'd see that I have a 403b also and it's made $1k every year since 2000 without one new penny invested in it. I didn't lose any money during the so called slow down. My mortgage went down during the housing bubble and subsequent bursting.

I wonder why you have such a problem understanding that I don't want to pay my mortgage with fairly valuable money when I can buy durable goods and pay my mortgage with worthless money. What part of that equation don't you get?

Ya know some cops say they've never unbuckled a dead person. Ya know why. They ain't been to enough accidents.

If I'd followed financial advisors I wouldn't be where I am today. Secure.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> From one of your previous posts you said you are paying mortgage insurance. So that must mean you have not paid down 20% of the sales price. At the present time the premiums paid are deductible on your taxes, but that can change. Is all of your 401K invested in the stock market? Not a good idea. What happens if it crashes?
> 
> At the time my husband retired in 1999, we lost more than 30% of the value of his 401k. We were able to wait until it regained plus a little, took it out paid the tax, and invested in a CD at 4.5%. If we would have left it in the 401K we would have lost half in the next crash. On Dec 31st. we took the first withdrawal from those funds for a new truck. We only used a little over half of the amount.
> 
> ...


Sound advice Joey. I would never pay mortgage insurance or PMI on a mortgage; but I wouldn't ever buy something I couldn't afford or couldn't put at least 20% down on either.

Unfortunately, in my career, I've seen so many lose their homes after paying mortgages for 15 or more years only to be without in their twilight years. Very sad and with proper planning, avoidable.

BTW: The interest rates when I bought my first home were 18-21% and I locked in from overseas (on vacation) at 13% and considered myself lucky on my timing. To think of it now makes me laugh at how ridiculous that was!


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I have a dear friend with an extremely large home who has already suggested my husband and I join he and his wife and one other couple and all live together under one roof in our senior years. We have discussed pooling our assets, living arrangements and resources and hire our own team of drivers, doctors, physical therapists, etc. It is still in the early stages of discussion but it does seem very interesting rather than each couple relying only upon themselves, their children or public living facilities.


Family situations have changed dramatically over the last few decades. Extended families have been pushed aside and blended families have become the norm. Why not the same blended "family" with friends. They might just get along better in the long run. :lol: It is something to consider.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Sound advice Joey. I would never pay mortgage insurance or PMI on a mortgage; but I wouldn't ever buy something I couldn't afford or couldn't put at least 20% down on either.
> 
> Unfortunately, in my career, I've seen so many lose their homes after paying mortgages for 15 or more years only to be without in their twilight years. Very sad and with proper planning, avoidable.
> 
> BTW: The interest rates when I bought my first home were 18-21% and I locked in from overseas (on vacation) at 13% and considered myself lucky on my timing. To think of it now makes me laugh at how ridiculous that was!


The insurance I am paying for is not the mortgage insurance you are talking about. I bought this place in 2000. I bought this insurance back in 2011. Private insurance.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> All true- NJG has a habit of posting lies and false info always to the benefit of her party; Democrat. All taxpayers should take a look at all the fees, charges and taxes they pay on their utility bills, especially phone, to realize what taxes they pay so everyone gets their free "Obama Phone." Except, of course, those who pay the taxes/fees/charges don't get the free Obama Phone.


Should those taxpayers have looked at the fees on their utility bills so they realized they were paying for all the "Bush Phones". You just keep proving yourself a hypocrite over and over.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Do it twice a year when you change the clock or the batteries in your smoke alarms. Rotate the canned goods and change the water in the bottles. Our problem in tornado country is where to store the stuff, if you don't have a tornado shelter. The homes in my area don't have basements.


I have heard that canned goods are useable beyond the stamped date. For how long, I'm not sure. They may not be in the best condition, but still edible.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Family situations have changed dramatically over the last few decades. Extended families have been pushed aside and blended families have become the norm. Why not the same blended "family" with friends. They might just get along better in the long run. :lol: It is something to consider.


Wanna join us?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> The insurance I am paying for is not the mortgage insurance you are talking about. I bought this place in 2000. I bought this insurance back in 2011. Private insurance.


No, I didn't assume you were paying mandated mortgage insurance. That is why I said I personally wouldn't pay for mortgage insurance OR PMI.

I don't much believe in insurance or extended warranties, that sort of thing.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:



> Perhaps, someday, you'll understand how the USA Congress, a filibuster and the USA economy works. I'm not willing to take my time to explain my comments to you particularly when you have used the last few months to criticize, insult and shout your hatred to me.
> 
> BTW: I have NEVER professed "that I'm so smart" and am once again offended by how you treat KPers and me repeatedly. Leave us all alone.


Oh, please, please please do explain. Tell me how President Obama can pass anything he wants, and tell me how he controls the legislative branch and the senate. Come on, tell me.

This is what you said: 1) No one has stopped Obama from doing anything about creating jobs. Obama refuses to even meet with his own Jobs Council. Obama could pass anything he wants since he controls the WH, the legislative branch and the Dem controlled Senate AND everything he wants he edicts by Executive Order or illegally anyway.

After some of the things you have said on KP, you have no right to talk about what someone else has said. You DO try to make yourself look super smart, by constantly looking down your nose at everyone you don't agree with. You constantly put other people down and have a holier than thou attitude. What you dish out, you get back.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No, I didn't assume you were paying mandated mortgage insurance. That is why I said I personally wouldn't pay for mortgage insurance OR PMI.
> 
> I don't much believe in insurance or extended warranties, that sort of thing.


Well seeing as where I'm a human and not a machine I am apt to croak at any time. And if I get sick this insurance will pay my whole mortgage. Now I just have to think of some horrible disease to muster up. Got any ideas. LOL


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Sound advice Joey. I would never pay mortgage insurance or PMI on a mortgage; but I wouldn't ever buy something I couldn't afford or couldn't put at least 20% down on either.
> 
> Unfortunately, in my career, I've seen so many lose their homes after paying mortgages for 15 or more years only to be without in their twilight years. Very sad and with proper planning, avoidable.
> 
> BTW: The interest rates when I bought my first home were 18-21% and I locked in from overseas (on vacation) at 13% and considered myself lucky on my timing. To think of it now makes me laugh at how ridiculous that was!


What does Joey's first sentence say here?


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> It's not a bad idea. One that can definitely be expanded upon. Less clutter and furniture, double function pieces, wider doorways to accommodate wheelchairs and walkers, etc. I think the adult commune, with varying ages, could take root. Times are changing and people need to change as well.


Not to rain on anyone's parade, but there have been articles available on this lifestyle for several years, both in print and online. It IS a good idea, and has already been put in practice, but mostly by elderly singles so far. There is certainly no reason why anyone of any age couldn't do this; the difficult part seems to be to find others who can all play nicely long term (folks who can/will stick by the agreed-upon house rules).


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Why did you allow your mother to live without a cell phone, wireless phone or emergency device? If you're willing to pay $2.50 per month for others, why did you choose to ignore your own mother and not take care of her during her latter years? That isn't even humane.


That was very very rude KPG. You have no right to talk about what others say.


----------



## misssusan644 (Dec 9, 2013)

Jokim said:


> I have heard that canned goods are useable beyond the stamped date. For how long, I'm not sure. They may not be in the best condition, but still edible.


Warning: canned goods may look fine externally but the contents are no longer safe to eat if they are way past their use by date. There are guidelines online for everything, including shampoo and toothpaste. Just search for shelf life of......and you'll find plenty of info.

I have become wary of eating what others have prepared. The local food pantry once gave out a nutritional drink that was 7 years old. When the recipient let them know, they told her that they used a can of sweetened condensed milk that was 14 years old to make cookies for a party!

Consume at your own risk.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> From one of your previous posts you said you are paying mortgage insurance. So that must mean you have not paid down 20% of the sales price. At the present time the premiums paid are deductible on your taxes, but that can change. Is all of your 401K invested in the stock market? Not a good idea. What happens if it crashes?
> 
> At the time my husband retired in 1999, we lost more than 30% of the value of his 401k. We were able to wait until it regained plus a little, took it out paid the tax, and invested in a CD at 4.5%. If we would have left it in the 401K we would have lost half in the next crash. On Dec 31st. we took the first withdrawal from those funds for a new truck. We only used a little over half of the amount.
> 
> ...


Joey could you re-read your second sentence here. What did I miss.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Jokim said:


> I have heard that canned goods are useable beyond the stamped date. For how long, I'm not sure. They may not be in the best condition, but still edible.


I heard that also. That for a lot of products is is only a guideline.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

WindingRoad said:


> Well seeing as where I'm a human and not a machine I am apt to croak at any time. And if I get sick this insurance will pay my whole mortgage. Now I just have to think of some horrible disease to muster up. Got any ideas. LOL


Idon'twannapaymymortgageitis? I hear it's extremely contagious. :XD: :XD:


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> This did not start out as a discussion about the US Social Security system, it started out as a discussion about fixed incomes. There were several people from other countries also living on a fixed income. Everybody was coming together over a common issue, fixed incomes, and discussing ways they manage and vents they had. It wasn't until some people decided to make it about political issues that the US system was soley discussed, excluding those in other countries. Then we wonder, as us citizens, why other countries view us as selfish or "exclusive".


It doesn't make me wonder. Many years ago there was a book written entitled, "The Ugly American." It was very controversial at the time , but the truth always is :~). I notice that most Americans do not have a world view, or even an "outside of my neighborhood" one, and they tend to condemn those others who differ from them in any way, even those in other parts of the world who have had much more life experience over time that this relatively new country. We seem to be so impressed by our own "entitledness" that many of us passed it down to our children/grandchildren and wonder what it was we did wrong...the so-called American Dream became a nightmare in many cases because it got twisted to "I want my children to have more than I had." They do have more material things, but far less in manners and concern for others. All of this is, of course, my opinion. As always, there are exceptions, but I notice it's so rare that folks who are the exceptions get headlines in the media these days.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Your statement is not accurate. The title of the thread is "Fixed Income" but from the original post it has been about Social Security as IF SS *is* Fixed Income. It is not which I have stated repeatedly. The thread has always been about living on SS and not Fixed Income.


For the majority of people SS is a fixed income, but there you go with that I'm smarter than you attitude-- "It is not which I have stated repeatedly."


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> . and here we have the exact thing I described to SAMKewel - a post of Susan's worthy of admiration? I think not.


I see a difference between statements made to hurt others' feelings and simple sarcasm, which is not meant to be pure truth.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> It doesn't make me wonder. Many years ago there was a book written entitled, "The Ugly American." It was very controversial at the time , but the truth always is :~). I notice that most Americans do not have a world view, or even an "outside of my neighborhood" one, and they tend to condemn those others who differ from them in any way, even those in other parts of the world who have had much more life experience over time that this relatively new country. We seem to be so impressed by our own "entitledness" that many of us passed it down to our children/grandchildren and wonder what it was we did wrong...the so-called American Dream became a nightmare in many cases because it got twisted to "I want my children to have more than I had." They do have more material things, but far less in manners and concern for others. All of this is, of course, my opinion. As always, there are exceptions, but I notice it's so rare that folks who are the exceptions get headlines in the media these days.


When I made quite a few friends in other countries I was surprised at how the other countries saw us. It was after I had gotten to know them that they got comfortable enough to tell me. They seemed shocked that all Americans aren't like that. But listening to the news and the attitude in America you would think that everybody in other countries are dying to come to America and are bowing down in adoration of our greatness. America in general has blinders on to how the rest of the world sees us. It makes me very sad.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> Are we getting into their politics?


Nobody is suggesting that. But starting with page one we had someone from another country also on here discussing living on a fixed income. It was a nice discussion venting and discussing managing in a fixed income, not so much with the politics of any country.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> For the majority of people SS is a fixed income, but there you go with that I'm smarter than you attitude-- "It is not which I have stated repeatedly."


Oh she is so full of foolishness it is ridiculous to give any credence to what she says. 
The thread included people from Austrailia, the UK, from Canada, Greece or Italy and none of them suggested that they were ex-pats of the US. Correction: I do think that one person IDed as an expat. 
Just yesterday she thought that the legislative branch at the federal level and the US Senate were serarate entities. 
Today, I have had to interrupt the holiday of the Admin to check on a claim she made that having a picture of Michelle Obama as an avatar is a breach of the rules. 
She is full of Coke as we used to say as kids.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Your statement is not accurate. The title of the thread is "Fixed Income" but from the original post it has been about Social Security as IF SS *is* Fixed Income. It is not which I have stated repeatedly. The thread has always been about living on SS and not Fixed Income.


Starting on page one we had a person from another country discussing that they lived in a fixed income as well. It was a sense of a similar struggle that spand borders.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

NJG said:


> That was very very rude KPG. You have no right to talk about what others say.


Obviously, this was another case of someone's assuming. We all know what the word "assume" means, but it's always dangerous to make it a habit. It was more than rude, it was intended to guilt-trip someone even though the facts were, at that point, unknown.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> When I made quite a few friends in other countries I was surprised at how the other countries saw us. It was after I had gotten to know them that they got comfortable enough to tell me. They seemed shocked that all Americans aren't like that. But listening to the news and the attitude in America you would think that everybody in other countries are dying to come to America and are bowing down in adoration of our greatness. America in general has blinders on to how the rest of the world sees us. It makes me very sad.


I don't get the preponderance of my information from the media because the media has become a political tool rather than a source of accurate information. One has to check other sources and observe what is actually going on around them, don't you think? I haven't seen the type of "news" you're referring to for several years, but it was really laid on thick awhile back. The older I get (75 years so far), the more I realize there are no absolutes and there are exceptions to everything. I'm certainly in agreement that many Americans do wear blinders, have a tendency to look down on others, and are often a source of sadness in their behavior.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> All true- NJG has a habit of posting lies and false info always to the benefit of her party; Democrat. All taxpayers should take a look at all the fees, charges and taxes they pay on their utility bills, especially phone, to realize what taxes they pay so everyone gets their free "Obama Phone." Except, of course, those who pay the taxes/fees/charges don't get the free Obama Phone.


I think there is a lot more tax payers should take a look at. How about the people who voted to cut food stamps for the poor, the disabled and veterans, but then Congressman Steve Fincher, with a net worth of $1,149,999 to $1,204,995 takes $3,483,824 in farm subsidies. Or how about few more examples of their hypocrisy. One republican congressman was given $127.41 a day for food on his trip to Argentina. He probably had a fare amount of steak. Another member was given $3,588 for food and lodging during a six-day trip to Russia. He probably drank a fair amount of vodka and probably even had some caviar. That particular member has 21,000 food stamp recipients in his district. One of those people who is on food stamps could live a year on what this congressman spent on food and lodging for six days. Another 20 members made a trip to Dublin, Ireland. They got $166 a day for food. These members didnt pay a dime. They received almost $200 for a single meal only for themselves. Yet, for them the idea of helping fellow Americans spend less than $5 a day makes their skin crawl. The faces of families of veterans, of farmers, of the disabled, of the working poor are not visible to them, not even when they are their own constituents.

26 corporate farmers who remain nameless get $1 million each in subsidies meant for real farmers. The taxpayers are giving $7 billion per year to large agribusiness, yet, Republicans feel SNAP programs cost us too much money.

You are concerned about helping some one get a phone. Does any of this concern you? Perfect example of republican hypocrisy.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Windingroad

Thank you for information you posted. You seem to be one who knew what to expect in the coming years of retirement.

you remind me of my mother she was the same way. She could make a dollar stretch more than any one I knew. 

Do hope life is good to you but have a feeling it will no matter what comes up in your life.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Donna K Seems some on here do not want to hear about what you said.

But believe like you do. He has never let me down know matter what had gone on in my life. Don't think he will now. Good or bad God has always brought me through.

Always.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

NJG said:


> I think there is a lot more tax payers should take a look at. How about the people who voted to cut food stamps for the poor, the disabled and veterans, but then Congressman Steve Fincher, with a net worth of $1,149,999 to $1,204,995 takes $3,483,824 in farm subsidies. Or how about few more examples of their hypocrisy. One republican congressman was given $127.41 a day for food on his trip to Argentina. He probably had a fare amount of steak. Another member was given $3,588 for food and lodging during a six-day trip to Russia. He probably drank a fair amount of vodka and probably even had some caviar. That particular member has 21,000 food stamp recipients in his district. One of those people who is on food stamps could live a year on what this congressman spent on food and lodging for six days. Another 20 members made a trip to Dublin, Ireland. They got $166 a day for food. These members didnt pay a dime. They received almost $200 for a single meal only for themselves. Yet, for them the idea of helping fellow Americans spend less than $5 a day makes their skin crawl. The faces of families of veterans, of farmers, of the disabled, of the working poor are not visible to them, not even when they are their own constituents.
> 
> 26 corporate farmers who remain nameless get $1 million each in subsidies meant for real farmers. The taxpayers are giving $7 billion per year to large agribusiness, yet, Republicans feel SNAP programs cost us too much money.
> 
> You are concerned about helping some one get a phone. Does any of this concern you? Perfect example of republican hypocrisy.


Actually, it concerns me to the point of making me feel sick over the current state of affairs. It would appear that the object of inspiration and worship in the USA has become the amassing of great wealth. One for all and all for one has quietly died a gruesome death of which we are just becoming fully aware, and where is the outrage? It seems to be over a $2.50 fee to provide a basic phone to those who have no resources.....


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Actually, it concerns me to the point of making me feel sick over the current state of affairs. It would appear that the object of inspiration and worship in the USA has become the amassing of great wealth. One for all and all for one has quietly died a gruesome death of which we are just becoming fully aware, and where is the outrage? It seems to be over a $2.50 fee to provide a basic phone to those who have no resources.....


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

NJG said:


> I think there is a lot more tax payers should take a look at. How about the people who voted to cut food stamps for the poor, the disabled and veterans, but then Congressman Steve Fincher, with a net worth of $1,149,999 to $1,204,995 takes $3,483,824 in farm subsidies. Or how about few more examples of their hypocrisy. One republican congressman was given $127.41 a day for food on his trip to Argentina. He probably had a fare amount of steak. Another member was given $3,588 for food and lodging during a six-day trip to Russia. He probably drank a fair amount of vodka and probably even had some caviar. That particular member has 21,000 food stamp recipients in his district. One of those people who is on food stamps could live a year on what this congressman spent on food and lodging for six days. Another 20 members made a trip to Dublin, Ireland. They got $166 a day for food. These members didnt pay a dime. They received almost $200 for a single meal only for themselves. Yet, for them the idea of helping fellow Americans spend less than $5 a day makes their skin crawl. The faces of families of veterans, of farmers, of the disabled, of the working poor are not visible to them, not even when they are their own constituents.
> 
> 26 corporate farmers who remain nameless get $1 million each in subsidies meant for real farmers. The taxpayers are giving $7 billion per year to large agribusiness, yet, Republicans feel SNAP programs cost us too much money.
> 
> You are concerned about helping some one get a phone. Does any of this concern you? Perfect example of republican hypocrisy.


There are more millionaires in the top 10 who are DEMOCRATS. And that's a fact.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> When is a corporate farmer not a real farmer? Who do you think produces the food you eat? Do you want to pay half your income for food? To most cooperate farmers $1,000,000 is a very small amount in their cost of producing food. Usually the subsidy is have them produce a food that is needed, when they could produce something else and make more money.


Those subsidies were created to underpin the Food Stamp program. Guess the libs can't have it both ways.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> When is a corporate farmer not a real farmer? Who do you think produces the food you eat? Do you want to pay half your income for food? To most cooperate farmers $1,000,000 is a very small amount in their cost of producing food. Usually the subsidy is have them produce a food that is needed, when they could produce something else and make more money.


I grew up on a farm so save your preaching for someone else. What I was pointing out is the hypocrisy, again by republicans. The poor don't need food stamps, but I will keep my hand out and make sure I get mine.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

WindingRoad said:


> There are more millionaires in the top 10 who are DEMOCRATS. And that's a fact.


Are the democrats in congress voting to cut food stamps and at the same time voting to give subsidies to wealthy farmers? It's that hypocrisy thing again.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

NJG said:


> Are the democrats in congress voting to cut food stamps and at the same time voting to give subsidies to wealthy farmers? It's that hypocrisy thing again.


Well they aren't voting to keep them either now are they? You do know the definition of a liberal don't you. A liberal will give you the shirt off someone else's back.


----------



## grandmann (Feb 4, 2011)

rasputin said:


> I don't know if this is true in every state, but here in Mass. I get approx. 1/2 of what my husband gets. If his is more than mine than I can take approx. 1/2 of his instead. I don't know if i explained it correctly.
> My friend had 3 husbands. she collected SS and SS called her and told her to collect off of the husband who made the most money. so they switched her to husband #1.


If one spouse dies you get the greater SS of the two.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> So did I, the farm where I grew up. could not survive in todays world. Corporate farms are the ones that can grow food at a reasonable price. Quit bashing them.


And so did I. Even back then it was a tough job to make money. Even with critters.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

WindingRoad said:


> Those subsidies were created to underpin the Food Stamp program. Guess the libs can't have it both ways.


Farm subsidies were started during the depression to save farmers from being ruined, helping the small farmers, like my Dad with 120 acres. Big farmers, big oil, big banks, all there with their hands out for the tax payers to bail them out when they screw up. The problem is the republicans think that is a great idea, but the poor person that needs food stamps to feed their family, or the veteran who needs a little help, well to hell with them. Hypocrisy is what it is.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

NJG said:


> Farm subsidies were started during the depression to save farmers from being ruined, helping the small farmers, like my Dad with 120 acres. Big farmers, big oil, big banks, all there with their hands out for the tax payers to bail them out when they screw up. The problem is the republicans think that is a great idea, but the poor person that needs food stamps to feed their family, or the veteran who needs a little help, well to hell with them. Hypocrisy is what it is.


And I guess they never evolved. Why are you so worried about hypocrisy. Can't cure it in yourself?


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> My dad had 240 acres and barely got by. My salary for my first year of teaching was more than my dad had ever made.
> 
> The increase in food stamps has been in the 30% range since Obama took office. They are not doing away with food stamps. They want to change some of the rules. to make sure the ones that need the food stamps are getting them. Like most government programs, there is a lot of fraud and abuse. This is what needs to be decreased. Obama talks about it and does nothing. At least the Republicans are trying to rid the program of the fraud and abuse.


Can I get an amen.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> There are more millionaires in the top 10 who are DEMOCRATS. And that's a fact.


In the top 10...?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> My dad had 240 acres and barely got by. My salary for my first year of teaching was more than my dad had ever made.
> 
> The increase in food stamps has been in the 30% range since Obama took office. They are not doing away with food stamps. They want to change some of the rules. to make sure the ones that need the food stamps are getting them. Like most government programs, there is a lot of fraud and abuse. This is what needs to be decreased. Obama talks about it and does nothing. At least the Republicans are trying to rid the program of the fraud and abuse.


The increase of what? Geez, you guys are being really imprecise today.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

WindingRoad said:


> Well they aren't voting to keep them either now are they? You do know the definition of a liberal don't you. A liberal will give you the shirt off someone else's back.


Who was it took the food stamps out of the farm bill, where it has always been and then voted to cut it by $40 billion, saying that it would "help people find jobs." Well, then lets help big oil produce more oil, and help big farmers produce more food! Your definition describes a republican perfectly, if you have no food to eat and no clothes to wear, well too bad for you.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> My dad had 240 acres and barely got by. My salary for my first year of teaching was more than my dad had ever made.
> 
> The increase in food stamps has been in the 30% range since Obama took office. They are not doing away with food stamps. They want to change some of the rules. to make sure the ones that need the food stamps are getting them. Like most government programs, there is a lot of fraud and abuse. This is what needs to be decreased. Obama talks about it and does nothing. At least the Republicans are trying to rid the program of the fraud and abuse.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> My dad had 240 acres and barely got by. My salary for my first year of teaching was more than my dad had ever made.
> 
> The increase in food stamps has been in the 30% range since Obama took office. They are not doing away with food stamps. They want to change some of the rules. to make sure the ones that need the food stamps are getting them. Like most government programs, there is a lot of fraud and abuse. This is what needs to be decreased. Obama talks about it and does nothing. At least the Republicans are trying to rid the program of the fraud and abuse.


And how many jobs were lost since the crash of the economy? Strange thing is, even when you loose your job, your family still has to eat. We were almost in a depression, if you don't understand what that does to the money supply for food, you need to wake up. The new bill would allow drug testing. Wonder if they will drug test those millionaire farmers or those oil executives. Yes, there is abuse in all programs, but you are not the one going without food, so easy for you to talk and look down your nose at "those people." Again, what is President Obama to do when not backed by congress.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> And how many jobs were lost since the crash of the economy? Strange thing is, even when you loose your job, your family still has to eat. We were almost in a depression, if you don't understand what that does to the money supply for food, you need to wake up. The new bill would allow drug testing. Wonder if they will drug test those millionaire farmers or those oil executives. Yes, there is abuse in all programs, but you are not the one going without food, so easy for you to talk and look down your nose at "those people." Again, what is President Obama to do when not backed by congress.


I wouldn't be so sure about that testing, Rick Scott (is that right? Florida) just has his little test found unconstitional by a federal judge...onward and upward.
Please note, the lovely Michelle Obama remains as my avatar.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I wouldn't be so sure about that testing, Rick Scott (is that right? Florida) just has his little test found unconstitional by a federal judge...onward and upward.


But why do they assume the poor people need to be drug tested, but not the wealthy ones. I just have to say it again, hypocrite, and watch them deny that that is what they are.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> In the top 10...?


Congress try to follow the thread.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

NJG said:


> But why do they assume the poor people need to be drug tested, but not the wealthy ones. I just have to say it again, hypocrite, and watch them deny that that is what they are.


Which wealthy people are getting food stamps. I'm against that. fer sur.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

NJG said:


> And how many jobs were lost since the crash of the economy? Strange thing is, even when you loose your job, your family still has to eat. We were almost in a depression, if you don't understand what that does to the money supply for food, you need to wake up. The new bill would allow drug testing. Wonder if they will drug test those millionaire farmers or those oil executives. Yes, there is abuse in all programs, but you are not the one going without food, so easy for you to talk and look down your nose at "those people." Again, what is President Obama to do when not backed by congress.


Take his toys and go home????


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

WindingRoad said:


> Which wealthy people are getting food stamps. I'm against that. fer sur.


Well, you can play ignorant, but I am sure you know exactly what I meant. If you want to drug test people for getting food stamps, then drug test the big oil execs who receive subsidies, drug test the wealthy farmers getting subsidies.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

WindingRoad said:


> Take his toys and go home????


Of course, when there is something you can't answer, make a joke.


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

NJG said:


> Of course, when there is something you can't answer, make a joke.


It wasn't a joke. I meant it.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

WindingRoad said:


> It wasn't a joke. I meant it.


Fine, avoid what you can't answer and show your ignorance besides.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

I agree. And this topic has turned from helpful ideas to other people jumping in and jumping on each other.



SAMkewel said:


> It doesn't make me wonder. Many years ago there was a book written entitled, "The Ugly American." It was very controversial at the time , but the truth always is :~). I notice that most Americans do not have a world view, or even an "outside of my neighborhood" one, and they tend to condemn those others who differ from them in any way, even those in other parts of the world who have had much more life experience over time that this relatively new country. We seem to be so impressed by our own "entitledness" that many of us passed it down to our children/grandchildren and wonder what it was we did wrong...the so-called American Dream became a nightmare in many cases because it got twisted to "I want my children to have more than I had." They do have more material things, but far less in manners and concern for others. All of this is, of course, my opinion. As always, there are exceptions, but I notice it's so rare that folks who are the exceptions get headlines in the media these days.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> Which wealthy people are getting food stamps. I'm against that. fer sur.


Speaking of trying to follow the thread... plenty of rich people are getting many more of our dollars than some poor slob who is pulling down $186./month in SNAP benefits.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> I agree. And this topic has turned from helpful ideas to other people jumping in and jumping on each other.


Which it why, Ute, I began another thread but I guess we scared everyone away too quickly.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> Those subsidies were created to underpin the Food Stamp program. Guess the libs can't have it both ways.


That makes absolutely no sense. When did farm subidies begin? When did the Food Stamp Program begin? 
Why not challenge Joeysomma's assertion that $1 million is a small percentage and yet prevents the price of farm product from doubling? 
Guess you like having it both ways. 
SNAP benefits support the economy, just as unemployment benefits support the economy. Your Republican representatives are working at destroying the American system. 
Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> Congress try to follow the thread.


I see why you wanted to stop at 10, why not expand that to 20? to 25? 
A little further south than Maine we call that sort of "fact" an untruth.

http://media.cq.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-113th-2013.html


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> And I guess they never evolved. Why are you so worried about hypocrisy. Can't cure it in yourself?


That doesn't even make sense the altered use was described in the body of her post. 
The subsidies were developed to help family farmers and GREW to subsidize huge companies that ate up the family farm.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

WindingRoad said:


> Those subsidies were created to underpin the Food Stamp program. Guess the libs can't have it both ways.


And your source of information is?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> Should those taxpayers have looked at the fees on their utility bills so they realized they were paying for all the "Bush Phones". You just keep proving yourself a hypocrite over and over.


You can not find a post anywhere on KP that supports what you try to project as my beliefs. Because you don't have any idea what I believe on this topic proves I am NOT a hypocrite and you a liar.

Why is it so difficult for you to discuss topics without attacking me personally? I've asked you multiple times to leave me alone. Please do so.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> For the majority of people SS is a fixed income, but there you go with that I'm smarter than you attitude-- "It is not which I have stated repeatedly."


Don't believe me, look up the definition about what "fixed income" actually is in the USA which is precisely what this thread is about. I've given the accepted and appropriate definition and you believing otherwise doesn't change the fact of was it is.

BTW: learn to discuss the topic without personal attacks


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Oh she is so full of foolishness it is ridiculous to give any credence to what she says.
> 
> Just yesterday she thought that the legislative branch at the federal level and the US Senate were serarate entities.


Really? Prove exactly where I said that. I never suggested that, that is what you believe you read.

BTW: what is "serarate"?



jelun2 said:


> Today, I have had to interrupt the holiday of the Admin to check on a claim she made that having a picture of Michelle Obama as an avatar is a breach of the rules.


Really? If I have no credibility to my statements, when then did you *have * to "interrupt the holiday of KP's Admin" with your fool's errand?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> Obviously, this was another case of someone's assuming. We all know what the word "assume" means, but it's always dangerous to make it a habit. It was more than rude, it was intended to guilt-trip someone even though the facts were, at that point, unknown.


Apparently, you have not read the vicious, hateful and disgusting posts to and about me and many other KP posters that Susanmos2000 writes since at least when I first joined KP. It would serve you well to read her prior posts so you know the facts of which you do not presently.

I assumed nothing and Susanmos again posted a guilt trip as she so often does.

As I stated, Susanmos repeatedly blames and puts guilt trips on EVERYONE who is not a Liberal as she is.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> There are more millionaires in the top 10 who are DEMOCRATS. And that's a fact.


Exactly - but she'll not bring up those facts. :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> Farm subsidies were started during the depression to save farmers from being ruined, helping the small farmers, like my Dad with 120 acres. Big farmers, big oil, big banks, all there with their hands out for the tax payers to bail them out when they screw up. The problem is the republicans think that is a great idea, but the poor person that needs food stamps to feed their family, or the veteran who needs a little help, well to hell with them. Hypocrisy is what it is.


Which party does not support the military, make cuts to the military, refused them weapons and protective gear, cut the production of ammo while stockpiling it, use them as props for photo ops, don't like to visit them on station or in VA hospitals, recently insulted the veterans by barring them from their memorials in D.C., and recently wrote cuts in the first budget in nearly five years to the promised pensions of Veterans? Oh, that would always be the Democrats; gotta love YOUR hypocrisy.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Apparently, you have not read the vicious, hateful and disgusting posts to and about me and many other KP posters that Susanmos2000 writes since at least when I first joined KP. It would serve you well to read her prior posts so you know the facts of which you do not presently.
> 
> I assumed nothing and Susanmos again posted a guilt trip as she so often does.
> 
> As I stated, Susanmos repeatedly blames and puts guilt trips on EVERYONE who is not a Liberal as she is.


To be perfectly honest, I don't have the time available to research each and every KP member. If I did that, I wouldn't have time for anything else. I'll take your word for it that you and Susanmos have a long history of conflict.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

WindingRoad said:


> Can I get an amen.


Amen. I believe the increase in food stamp benefits has doubled under the Obama Administration.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> To be perfectly honest, I don't have the time available to research each and every KP member. If I did that, I wouldn't have time for anything else. I'll take your word for it that you and Susanmos have a long history of conflict.


Thank you.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> jelun2 wrote:
> Oh she is so full of foolishness it is ridiculous to give any credence to what she says.
> 
> Just yesterday she thought that the legislative branch at the federal level and the US Senate were serarate entities.
> ...


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Just yesterday she thought that the legislative branch at the federal level and the US Senate were serarate entities.


Guess what Jelun? Obama DOES control all that I said he did.

Guess you don't understand that the President has the ability to appoint his Cabinet members, judges to the Supreme and Federal Courts and other positions like the AG, AND his Vice President (his choice and of his party) who presides over the Senate in the case of a tie, and that it is the Senate who has the ability to approve all those appointees. So, ya, the President has the WH and the Legislative Branch which includes the Senate along with SP Harry Reid (a Dem who does the President's bidding) all tied up wouldn't you say? I did not state I believe the Legislative Branch was *separate * from the Senate - those are your words.

I also believe my post about this was today, not yesterday. Not that or anything you attempt to foster on me matters ...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Guess what Jelun? Obama DOES control all that I said he did.
> 
> Guess you don't understand that the President has the ability to appoint his Cabinet members, judges to the Supreme and Federal Courts and other positions like the AG, AND his Vice President (his choice and of his party) who presides over the Senate in the case of a tie, and that it is the Senate who has the ability to approve all those appointees. So, ya, the President has the WH and the Legislative Branch which includes the Senate with Harry Reid (a Dem who does the President's bidding) all tied up wouldn't you say? I did not state I believe the Legislative Branch was *separate * from the Senate - those are your words.


Nice that you corrected your error. Thanks for today. You have done an excellent job of reminding me of the why for avoiding you.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Nice that you corrected your error. Thanks for today. You have done an excellent job of reminding me of the why for avoiding you.


Nice you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to me and yet you continue to attempt to put your words in my mouth. Again, you remind me that you are not good for your word.

I didn't correct anything as I didn't make a mistake as you state.


----------



## page62 (Nov 24, 2011)

Hi; I live in Chilliwack Canada, and Have just turned 65 so now on pension, was on disability before, but could work some jobs that helped, when I was disability I was below poverty, now I am a few dollars up with the cpp and oas and Gis income, but with out my part time job selling Watkins products it would be very hard to make ends meet here, So I go to the flea markets and in the malls and the farmers market selling Watkins and do pretty good, so what I am trying to say is if you can find a part time job you enjoy I say go for it.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

page62 said:


> Hi; I live in Chilliwack Canada, and Have just turned 65 so now on pension, was on disability before, but could work some jobs that helped, when I was disability I was below poverty, now I am a few dollars up with the cpp and oas and Gis income, but with out my part time job selling Watkins products it would be very hard to make ends meet here, So I go to the flea markets and in the malls and the farmers market selling Watkins and do pretty good, so what I am trying to say is if you can find a part time job you enjoy I say go for it.


Good ideas, page62!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Which party does not support the military, make cuts to the military, refused them weapons and protective gear, cut the production of ammo while stockpiling it, use them as props for photo ops, don't like to visit them on station or in VA hospitals, recently insulted the veterans by barring them from their memorials in D.C., and recently wrote cuts in the first budget in nearly five years to the promised pensions of Veterans? Oh, that would always be the Democrats; gotta love YOUR hypocrisy.


Since it was the Republicans who shut the government down, they get the blame for closed memorials. When you shut the gov't down, all things that are gov't operated shut down with it. You should know that. You can thank the Tea Party for that kerfuffle.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Which party does not support the military, make cuts to the military, refused them weapons and protective gear, cut the production of ammo while stockpiling it, use them as props for photo ops, don't like to visit them on station or in VA hospitals, recently insulted the veterans by barring them from their memorials in D.C., and recently wrote cuts in the first budget in nearly five years to the promised pensions of Veterans? Oh, that would always be the Democrats; gotta love YOUR hypocrisy.


Defense is 52% of our budget...so how much more do you think we should spend? The protective gear problem was at the beginning of the war, when both the right and the left had supported our entry into the war due to the Bush administrations lies about weapons of mass destruction. Photo ops..."mission accomplished" anyone (amongst many others)?


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

page62 said:


> Hi; I live in Chilliwack Canada, and Have just turned 65 so now on pension, was on disability before, but could work some jobs that helped, when I was disability I was below poverty, now I am a few dollars up with the cpp and oas and Gis income, but with out my part time job selling Watkins products it would be very hard to make ends meet here, So I go to the flea markets and in the malls and the farmers market selling Watkins and do pretty good, so what I am trying to say is if you can find a part time job you enjoy I say go for it.


Yes, a PT job can really help! Farmers markets here tend to be expensive, but it sounds as if they are more reasonable where you are. And does your health service take a weight off your mind?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> That makes absolutely no sense. When did farm subidies begin? When did the Food Stamp Program begin?
> Why not challenge Joeysomma's assertion that $1 million is a small percentage and yet prevents the price of farm product from doubling?
> Guess you like having it both ways.
> SNAP benefits support the economy, just as unemployment benefits support the economy. Your Republican representatives are working at destroying the American system.
> Why do you suppose that is?


How does SNAP and unemployment support the economy? You are taking money from tax payers to give to someone else so the tax payers have less to spend themselves? Redistribution of wealth is a Socialist system not the American system.

I believe in having a safety net for those that are in crisis and need help. But increasing taxes of others to give to those that could work is punitive to the people that are working hard and could use that money to buy their own food. This socialistic way of thinking is destroying the American Dream in my opinion. Why work hard to earn more money for your family when it puts you in a higher tax bracket and the government takes it to waste? I would wager that many charities are lacking in funds because people do not have the money to donate that they had before the tax hikes. I fear churches, community services, and others will fail in the upcoming year due to a lack of charitable contributions due to the increase of Obamacare taxes, increase premiums due to Obamacare, increased deductibles due to Obamacare, increasing gas prices, increasing milk prices, increase of________(just fill in the blank)......


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Since it was the Republicans who shut the government down, they get the blame for closed memorials. When you shut the gov't down, all things that are gov't operated shut down with it. You should know that. You can thank the Tea Party for that kerfuffle.


Obama made a definitive decision and appointed folks to specifically close the Vets' memorial, admitted to same and took the blame. Obama is not a Republican. These are the facts that I know.

I also know your statement that all things gov't operated shut down when the government is shutdown is not true or factual. You should know better.


----------



## vannavanna (Oct 15, 2012)

Valkyrie said:


> Hudson, you could spend that much, $12,800 in one day if you first go to the E.R., have expensive tests, then spend one night in ICU. So at least you don't have to worry that you would be kicked out the second day (just kiddin).It used to be against hospitals policy to discharge a pt from an ICU, they first have to go to a general floor for safetys sake.
> 
> :? :?


I am so glad I live in England our Health Care in general is free.Didn't Obama try to bring free health care in for you? What happened to that?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> How does SNAP and unemployment support the economy? You are taking money from tax payers to give to someone else so the tax payers have less to spend themselves? Redistribution of wealth is a Socialist system not the American system.


It does the economy no good whatsoever when people are forced to cut corners and reduce their spending to an absolute minimum--that's why the government occasionally gives out "free" money and encourages the recipients to use it for consumer goods, and why we have a fixed minimum wage. The less people spend the more prices drop, which is why so many farmers lost their land and so many businesses were forced to close during the Great Depression.

Do I approve of an economy that's become dependent on steroids ie artificial infusions of money, in order to survive? Obviously not. It seems terribly ironic that the precepts our grandmothers practiced about scrimping and saving are actually harmful to the 21st century American economy. Something's really wrong with there, but no one seems to be able to come up with a real fix as of yet.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Obama made a definitive decision and appointed folks to specifically close the Vets' memorial, admitted to same and took the blame. Obama is not a Republican. These are the facts that I know.
> 
> I also know your statement that all things gov't operated shut down when the government is shutdown is not true or factual. You should know better.


The world war and Veit Nam memorial's are not funded by the goverment they are funded by private citizens. the park service has nothing to do with it. Obama closed them down . Just like he did with park in the north west. Have you every ask your self why? If they are not goverment funded then why would he feel the need to fence them off????
He was also the one who want seqester as has been proven and announce on national news. So why does one keep blaming it all on Rep. He had his hand in it too.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

vannavanna said:


> I am so glad I live in England our Health Care in general is free.Didn't Obama try to bring free health care in for you? What happened to that?


Yes he did but many things have and are still going wrong. I don't know if it will get straighten out. It was expected that more young people would sign up, as they are needed to help put this in place. So far that is not the case. We will have to wait and see what happens.

I have heard on the BBC and over here that your health care is having problems as more money is going out then is coming in. They the parliament wants to make cuts in the health programs. 
Is this true? I really would like to know and appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Donna K you are so right we can not depend on anything on this earth. I find that God has been there for all I need. Be it accidents, health concerns, money, ect. he has always supplied my needs.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

I have found and this is just me that in order to have money i have to stop spending money on things I do not really need. Not to say it is easy, but find that when I do every once and a while I can treat myself to something I want.

It is not as easy for the baby boomers generation. But I think we are all trying to just get through each day. I find it is best for me not to worry about the future, as I might not be there. It's enough to worry about this day. I try not easy to find something good in each day.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> The world war and Veit Nam memorial's are not funded by the goverment they are funded by private citizens. the park service has nothing to do with it. Obama closed them down . Just like he did with park in the north west. Have you every ask your self why? If they are not goverment funded then why would he feel the need to fence them off????
> He was also the one who want seqester as has been proven and announce on national news. So why does one keep blaming it all on Rep. He had his hand in it too.


Exactly correct. Obama did not have ONE reason to close down sidewalks, memorials and privately funded parks and areas, but specifically took it upon himself to have those places barred and/or closed because of spite. That is not the way a leader of our Nation nor a person of character should act regardless of political party. He disgraced himself BIG time and most Americans took notice.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> The world war and Veit Nam memorial's are not funded by the goverment they are funded by private citizens. the park service has nothing to do with it. Obama closed them down . Just like he did with park in the north west. Have you every ask your self why? If they are not goverment funded then why would he feel the need to fence them off????
> He was also the one who want seqester as has been proven and announce on national news. So why does one keep blaming it all on Rep. He had his hand in it too.


*1.* While the two memorials were privately funded, they are both on federal land and are managed by the National Park Service. Ergo, government-run.

*2.* The sequester was born to head off threatened shut-downs--yes, as far back as that the Republicans were threatening it. Was it a bad idea? You betcha.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Exactly correct. Obama did not have ONE reason to close down sidewalks, memorials and privately funded parks and areas, but specifically took it upon himself to have those places barred and/or closed because of spite. That is not the way a leader of our Nation nor a person of character should act regardless of political party. He disgraced himself BIG time and most Americans took notice.


Really? Then I guess you have no kind words for George Bush--he closed off Washington's D.C.'s parks and monuments in the government shutdown of 1990.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

vannavanna said:


> I am so glad I live in England our Health Care in general is free.Didn't Obama try to bring free health care in for you? What happened to that?


It was never meant to be "free" but available to all and affordable and paid for by American taxpayers.

Those promises have yet to come to fruition and presently the law called the "Affordable Care Act" is in dire straits.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

IIRC, a NHS-style healthcare system was bruited about but quickly dropped due to the uproar it caused.


----------



## vannavanna (Oct 15, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> How does SNAP and unemployment support the economy? You are taking money from tax payers to give to someone else so the tax payers have less to spend themselves? Redistribution of wealth is a Socialist system not the American system.
> 
> I believe in having a safety net for those that are in crisis and need help. But increasing taxes of others to give to those that could work is punitive to the people that are working hard and could use that money to buy their own food. This socialistic way of thinking is destroying the American Dream in my opinion. Why work hard to earn more money for your family when it puts you in a higher tax bracket and the government takes it to waste? I would wager that many charities are lacking in funds because people do not have the money to donate that they had before the tax hikes. I fear churches, community services, and others will fail in the upcoming year due to a lack of charitable contributions due to the increase of Obamacare taxes, increase premiums due to Obamacare, increased deductibles due to Obamacare, increasing gas prices, increasing milk prices, increase of________(just fill in the blank)......


Lovethelake, you would do better calling yourself i'mallrightjack


----------



## kittysgram (Nov 12, 2011)

i guess not much knitting has been done by all these postsof whos right and whos wrong!!! get those needles clicking and stop all the complaining.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

WindingRoad said:


> There are more millionaires in the top 10 who are DEMOCRATS. And that's a fact.


So please tell me what difference that makes. My post was about rich congressmen/women receiving farm subsidies and at the same time voting to cut food stamps for the poor. Also rich congressmen/women going on overseas trips, on taxpayers dollars, and having $166 daily allowance for meals, and at the same time voting to cut food stamps. Weather the richest congressmen/women are democrats or republicans has nothing to do with what I said. It has to do with this attitude republicans have about their lack of empathy for those less fortunate. If the democrats vote to cut food stamps, then they would be in the same group--hypocrites.


----------



## vannavanna (Oct 15, 2012)

theyarnlady said:


> Yes he did but many things have and are still going wrong. I don't know if it will get straighten out. It was expected that more young people would sign up, as they are needed to help put this in place. So far that is not the case. We will have to wait and see what happens.
> 
> I have heard on the BBC and over here that your health care is having problems as more money is going out then is coming in. They the parliament wants to make cuts in the health programs.
> Is this true? I really would like to know and appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you


Yes problems are always on the horizon depending on where one gets their news from. AnE depts. have waiting times of 6 hours or 5mins if you have breathing difficulties. I have a daughter in charge of a stroke ward with sometimes only one helper, then I have a DinL a District nurse who has time to chat with patients. I was happy to pay when working and am now happy for free treatment now retired. Our National Health is the best in the world.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It was Bill Clinton in 1995 not George Bush


Wrong, dear. This from AP on the history of government shutdowns. It all began with Reagan (big surprise):

"Republican Ronald Reagan moved into the White House in January 1981 with a promise to cut taxes and shrink government, setting up a showdown with Democrats who ran the House.

High noon came early on Monday, Nov. 23, 1981.

The government had technically been without money all weekend, but Congress approved emergency spending to keep it running. That morning, Reagan wielded his first veto. He was making a stand against "budget-busting policies," the president declared, sending confused federal workers streaming out of offices in Washington and across the nation.

It was the first government shutdown. But it lasted only hours. By that afternoon, Congress approved a three-week spending extension more to Reagan's liking. Workers returned Tuesday morning. The estimated cost: more than $80 million.

The pattern was set. Over his two terms, Reagan and congressional Democrats would regularly argue to the brink of shutdown, and twice more they sent workers home for a half-day.

President George H.W. Bush used the tactic only once, during the budget wrangling that punctured his "no new taxes" pledge.

That partial shutdown over the 1990 Columbus Day weekend mostly served to miff tourists who found national park visitor centers locked and Smithsonian museums closed."


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> It was Bill Clinton in 1995 not George Bush


Should we let the facts get in the way, Joey? :-D


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Should we let the facts get in the way, Joey? :-D


It's never stopped you before, KPG. Why end a long standing tradition?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

vannavanna said:


> Yes problems are always on the horizon depending on where one gets their news from. AnE depts. have waiting times of 6 hours or 5mins if you have breathing difficulties. I have a daughter in charge of a stroke ward with sometimes only one helper, then I have a DinL a District nurse who has time to chat with patients. I was happy to pay when working and am now happy for free treatment now retired. Our National Health is the best in the world.


Thank you it is nice to know what is happening in other country"s from the people who live there. :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> If the democrats vote to cut food stamps, then they would be in the same group--hypocrites.


Well, I guess, your beloved party of Democrats are hypocrites according to you then.

Because the Dems DID vote to cut food stamps in the 2009 Stimulus and funneled the $ cut to other programs then cut again as part of the 2010 spending bills with a promise to reverse the cuts in future budgets (never happened). Presently, the Dems wish to cut SNAP benefits in the current farm bill (just considerably less than the wishes of the Repubs).


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You can not find a post anywhere on KP that supports what you try to project as my beliefs. Because you don't have any idea what I believe on this topic proves I am NOT a hypocrite and you a liar.
> 
> Why is it so difficult for you to discuss topics without attacking me personally? I've asked you multiple times to leave me alone. Please do so.


My point was to your statement about "Obama Phones," because they are not Obama phones. The program was started during the Reagan administration and has been part of every administration since and you know that, but you don't care, you just want to bash President Obama. Why not stop with all the bashing, and try to have a conversation. Even when the truth is very obvious,you still prefer to go with the lie. All you do is keep saying poor me, everyone attacks me. Well you are constantly attacking out president, and as long as you do, you will get it back.


----------



## grandmann (Feb 4, 2011)

vannavanna said:


> I am so glad I live in England our Health Care in general is free.Didn't Obama try to bring free health care in for you? What happened to that?


I'm trying to get on Obama Care I keep getting a clich. In the mean time the Ins that I got from my Co. that I worked for has gone up so high that my whole SS is gone. Thank God we have my hubby's SS to live on.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Your second quote contradicts your first.
> 
> I will agree that the doors were locked on Museums and visitor centers but the parks and monuments normally open 24/7 were not closed.


Wrong again. By law Washington's parks and memorials must close during a government shutdown. They were closed in both 1990 and 1995.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Don't believe me, look up the definition about what "fixed income" actually is in the USA which is precisely what this thread is about. I've given the accepted and appropriate definition and you believing otherwise doesn't change the fact of was it is.
> 
> BTW: learn to discuss the topic without personal attacks


I don't care what your accepted and appropriate opinion is. When this post was started it was about fixed incomes which included social security. so let it be.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> How does SNAP and unemployment support the economy? You are taking money from tax payers to give to someone else so the tax payers have less to spend themselves? Redistribution of wealth is a Socialist system not the American system.


They only support the economy because Nancy Pelosi says so. If SNAP and unemployment support the economy, then the economy would be growing. It is not. SNAP doubled under this administration and unemployment was extended to 99 weeks, but the economy stayed stagnant. It has just lately begun to show some growth despite this administrations "best" efforts.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> They only support the economy because Nancy Pelosi says so. If SNAP and unemployment support the economy, then the economy would be growing. It is not. SNAP doubled under this administration and unemployment was extended to 99 weeks, but the economy stayed stagnant. It has just lately begun to show some growth despite this administrations "best" efforts.


Government does not create wealth. Free enterprise creates wealth and prosperity. Government destroys it through regulation and taxation!! :thumbdown:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Which party does not support the military, make cuts to the military, refused them weapons and protective gear, cut the production of ammo while stockpiling it, use them as props for photo ops, don't like to visit them on station or in VA hospitals, recently insulted the veterans by barring them from their memorials in D.C., and recently wrote cuts in the first budget in nearly five years to the promised pensions of Veterans? Oh, that would always be the Democrats; gotta love YOUR hypocrisy.


Republicans all the way. Bush even sent out military to Iraq without the protection they needed and then wouldn't let the press show when the caskets started coming back from Iraq. Talk about a slap in the face to the families, always at the hands of republicans. Stockpiling ammo, that is another one of the stories that has been proven to be a lie, but you keep repeating. The republicans shut down the government and closed the memorials. Look at who voted for the shutdown. As far as the budget Paul Ryan was involved in that and go look at the budget Ryan was pushing when he was running for VP and then try to tell me it is democrats. It is always republicans and it is your hypocrisy, as usual.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> My point was to your statement about "Obama Phones," because they are not Obama phones. The program was started during the Reagan administration and has been part of every administration since and you know that, but you don't care, you just want to bash President Obama. Why not stop with all the bashing, and try to have a conversation. Even when the truth is very obvious,you still prefer to go with the lie. All you do is keep saying poor me, everyone attacks me. Well you are constantly attacking out president, and as long as you do, you will get it back.


Your words to me mentioned taxes charged on utility bills for "Bush phones" when I and others were discussing "Obama phones" which are CELL phones which were not given out by Reagan during his terms.

Obama, his Admin and the passing of Obamacare contributed greatly to increased taxes for OBAMA CELL PHONES which is exactly my comments and the discussion I had with others. I have no idea why you cannot comprehend that which you read or you'd continued lies about my posts; nor do I care.

I don't complain poor me because I am not poor me, I speak the facts and don't lie. I've had hundreds of conversations with many great folks on KP and continue to do so.

I also don't know what part of "leave me alone" you do not understand. I'll go back to ignoring your comments to me as I have for the past weeks/month(s) as you are incapable of speaking the truth of having a polite discussion.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Amen. I believe the increase in food stamp benefits has doubled under the Obama Administration.


Do you think the crash of the economy, caused by Bush, might have had something to do with that? You love to bash President Obama for increasing food stamps, but if we had a republican president, tell me what would have happened to those people that lost their jobs and had no money for food.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Wrong again. By law Washington's parks and memorials must close during a government shutdown. They were closed in both 1990 and 1995.


If that's so, then why was access to Mt. Vernon blocked? The property is privately owned with only a portion of the parking lot publicly owned. It was done out of spite.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Guess what Jelun? Obama DOES control all that I said he did.
> 
> Guess you don't understand that the President has the ability to appoint his Cabinet members, judges to the Supreme and Federal Courts and other positions like the AG, AND his Vice President (his choice and of his party) who presides over the Senate in the case of a tie, and that it is the Senate who has the ability to approve all those appointees. So, ya, the President has the WH and the Legislative Branch which includes the Senate along with SP Harry Reid (a Dem who does the President's bidding) all tied up wouldn't you say? I did not state I believe the Legislative Branch was *separate * from the Senate - those are your words.
> 
> I also believe my post about this was today, not yesterday. Not that or anything you attempt to foster on me matters ...


You can't be serious? Do the democrats have control of the house? Do the democrats have a 60 vote control of the senate. Because of the filibuster, they need 60 votes to pass a bill in the senate, and the republicans will vote against any bill brought up by democrats even if they think it is a good idea. Also the president has had an awful time getting any appointments approved until the filibuster was changed for appointments. Past presidents were able to make appointments so why not President Obama? I am very glad Harry changed the filibuster rule. It should have been done long ago. He trusted republicans when they gave their word that they wouldn't filibuster appointments, but they lied, so he had no choice. Do you not pay attention to what is going on in Washington? Republicans control the house. I don't know any other way to say that.


----------



## vannavanna (Oct 15, 2012)

theyarnlady said:


> Thank you it is nice to know what is happening in other country"s from the people who live there. :thumbup:


You are welcome!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> If that's so, then why was access to Mt. Vernon blocked? The property is privately owned with only a portion of the parking lot publicly owned. It was done out of spite.


*Sigh* You conservative gals are sure doing your darndest to guide this conversation into safer waters for yourself. This all began because of KPG's statement that:

Obama did not have ONE reason to close down sidewalks, memorials and privately funded parks and areas, but specifically took it upon himself to have those places barred and/or closed because of spite. That is not the way a leader of our Nation nor a person of character should act regardless of political party."

...and Joey's refusal to believe that Bush initiated a government shutdown that included closure of Washington's museums and monuments in 1990.

The fact remains that government shutdowns are a political tool first used by Ronald Reagan in 1981 and each time it happens more people are affected and the stakes get higher. There was such outrage this past October that I believe both Congress and Obama are trying a little harder to find some middle ground, and that's all to the good. Closed monuments and parks are nought compared to the very real danger of tanking both the American and the world economies.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> If that's so, then why was access to Mt. Vernon blocked? The property is privately owned with only a portion of the parking lot publicly owned. It was done out of spite.


That's news to me. According to the Heritage Network "The picturesque estate of George Washington has long been a popular venue to visit while in the D.C. area, but right now it is busier than ever. According to one friendly staffer, Mount Vernon generally hosts around 1,500 visitors a daybut since the government shutdown, it has seen a notable increase."


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> "...and Joey's refusal to believe that Bush initiated a government shutdown that included closure of Washington's museums and monuments in 1990."
> 
> We have only your opinion that they were closed. Please provide proof. In case you didn't read, I did agree the museums were closed.
> 
> ...


Oh yes, I forgot I was dealing with a birther here. Well, how's this for starters? From The Week:

"The World War II Memorial wasn't around in 1995-96, but the National Park Service shut down the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, and other Washington tourist attractions during those shutdowns, keeping out an estimated two million visitors. That was on Bill Clinton's watch, but the practice is bipartisan: In the brief Columbus Day shutdown of 1990, George H.W. Bush shut down Washington's monuments and museums, too."


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I was reopened when the government discovered it only owned part of the parking lot.


Sounds OK to me. The government ultimately closed off only that part which it owned--the rest remained open and accessible.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Wrong as usual. The military had the equipment that was available at the time. It was up graded as new equipment was ready.
> President Bush would not allow photographs of the caskets returning home, for respect to the families of the military members killed. How would you like for the camera to be around and have pictures of you in your grief broadcast on National TV if it was your son or daughter or husband in one of those caskets?
> 
> As far as the government shut down, It was all Obama's doing. He was the one who refuse to negotiate. It was "his way or the highway." The republicans were right. The ACA should have been delayed for a year, then the 6+million Americans would know if they have health insurance today. Obama chose to make the shutdown as painful as possible for everyone. It cost about $24,000,000 to do it. (the amount is approximate).


And the repubs spent $40 million in advertising to make people believe the ACA was a disaster. Just think how THAT money could have been spent.
I guess the spirit of the miracle of Christmas bypassed some people. Still just as nasty and negative as usual.
P.S. When will you admit that the government shutdown was the work of the Tea Party and super conservative repubs? Your prejudices won't allow you to see the truth for one minute.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> The world war and Veit Nam memorial's are not funded by the goverment they are funded by private citizens. the park service has nothing to do with it. Obama closed them down . Just like he did with park in the north west. Have you every ask your self why? If they are not goverment funded then why would he feel the need to fence them off????
> He was also the one who want seqester as has been proven and announce on national news. So why does one keep blaming it all on Rep. He had his hand in it too.


The World War II memorial was funded by private donations and another 16 million from the federal government. The Vietnam memorial was funded all by private donations. The house and senate delegated the National Parks Service with the "preservation and protection of the sites. Remember a vandal splattered green paint on the Lincoln Memorial this summer.

A surprising number of acts of vandalism occur even when the parks are open  more than 2,000 a year on average. On top of that, rangers have to remind people not to eat and drink at sites, and also not to climb onto granite cornerstones and stone columns.

What if someone were to be injured while at the memorial or climbing on one of them? There has to be park service employees there to monitor everything. The republicans caused the shut down all over the ACA, because they couldn't get their way. The Obama administration stood strong and I am glad they did. If you don't believe that, please tell me what democrats voted to shut down the government.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Yes he did but many things have and are still going wrong. I don't know if it will get straighten out. It was expected that more young people would sign up, as they are needed to help put this in place. So far that is not the case. We will have to wait and see what happens.
> 
> I have heard on the BBC and over here that your health care is having problems as more money is going out then is coming in. They the parliament wants to make cuts in the health programs.
> Is this true? I really would like to know and appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you


Part of the problem is that republican groups like the Koch Brothers have spent millions to try to scare people, especially young people, from getting insurance. What person in their right mind would think it was a good idea to be without insurance. Of course, while they are doing this to try and make the ACA fail, you can bet they have good insurance. What is that word I always use to describe the republicans, oh ya hypocrite.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I said they were shut down in 1995. Website for the shutdown in 1990.
> 
> Where is the law that requires this?


Sorry, dear--I'm not going to play this game with you. But really, you should thank me. Before we discussed this you had no idea that major government shutdowns occurred in both '90 and '95. I've just saved you from looking even more foolish than you generally appear.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Really? Then I guess you have no kind words for George Bush--he closed off Washington's D.C.'s parks and monuments in the government shutdown of 1990.


Oh, they already forgot about that. Did the democrats use it as a photo op like the republicans did this time? Here comes that word again, hypocrite.
I'm sorry if everyone is sick of that word, but it just fits so well, I can't help myself.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

NJG said:


> Oh, they already forgot about that. Did the democrats use it as a photo op like the republicans did this time? Here comes that word again, hypocrite.
> I'm sorry if everyone is sick of that word, but it just fits so well, I can't help myself.


No apology necessary--the description fits like a glove!


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

We are getting into the political attacks and vituperative comments mode. Thanks to all who stayed civil and on subject. Happy New Year to all. I am sending then unwatching this topic.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> It was never meant to be "free" but available to all and affordable and paid for by American taxpayers.
> 
> Those promises have yet to come to fruition and presently the law called the "Affordable Care Act" is in dire straits.


But if the republicans would only participate instead of doing everything they can to destroy it, it would have been so much easier. When you spend millions to try to keep someone from getting health insurance, there is something wrong.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Should we let the facts get in the way, Joey? :-D


Of course not. She said 1990, not 1995. You and Joey just have to pay attention.


----------



## page62 (Nov 24, 2011)

Because I still have a disability the medical plan is still covered by the government


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Wrong as usual. The military had the equipment that was available at the time. It was up graded as new equipment was ready.
> President Bush would not allow photographs of the caskets returning home, for respect to the families of the military members killed. How would you like for the camera to be around and have pictures of you in your grief broadcast on National TV if it was your son or daughter or husband in one of those caskets?
> 
> As far as the government shut down, It was all Obama's doing. He was the one who refuse to negotiate. It was "his way or the highway." The republicans were right. The ACA should have been delayed for a year, then the 6+million Americans would know if they have health insurance today. Obama chose to make the shutdown as painful as possible for everyone. It cost about $24,000,000 to do it. (the amount is approximate).


Guess how many planes Bush has meet with returning caskets of Americans who gave their lives as compared to the number Obama has greeted?

Take a guess on the same with visits to the returning wounded in military or civilian hospitals by both Bush and Obama.

Guess how many parents Bush met and consoled and told the parents of the valiant efforts of their deceased soldiers.

How many times have you seen or heard about Obama visiting the troops on station or here at home. Now compare that to what Bush did during his tenure in the White House and today.

Guess how many parents Hillary and Obama lied to when the caskets of those killed in Benghazi returned to the hangar where Obama and Hillary finally decided to show up? Answer = all of them.

I can tell you which President stands head and shoulders above the other in support, compassion, and un-ending gratitude for our American Uniformed Forces = Bush. It isn't even a close comparison to Obama.

Joey - I believe you know the answers to my questions, but there sure are a lot of posters on this thread who don't have a clue.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Well, I guess, your beloved party of Democrats are hypocrites according to you then.
> 
> Because the Dems DID vote to cut food stamps in the 2009 Stimulus and funneled the $ cut to other programs then cut again as part of the 2010 spending bills with a promise to reverse the cuts in future budgets (never happened). Presently, the Dems wish to cut SNAP benefits in the current farm bill (just considerably less than the wishes of the Repubs).


The democrats are willing to cut food stamps just not at $40 billion.They had been at 8 billion.

The republicans started at 20 billion, then went to 31.4 billion and are now at 40 billion. It appears that they want to keep increasing it to the point that they are sure the democrats won't ever go for, and then they can play their look at how awesome we are, trying to cut spending. It would never work if the democrats ever agreed with them. They must play the game that we are the only ones trying to cut spending.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> "...and Joey's refusal to believe that Bush initiated a government shutdown that included closure of Washington's museums and monuments in 1990."
> 
> We have only your opinion that they were closed. Please provide proof. In case you didn't read, I did agree the museums were closed.
> 
> ...


She is wrong Joey. The 90's shut down was for three days on a long holiday weekend and the tourist info centers (some) were closed not the memorial I spoke about. Not many even noticed other than probably tourists, as you did, that weekend. Both the President (Rep) and the Congress (Dem) were not happy about the shutdown which was resolved nearly immediately. The longest shutdown ever was under President Clinton.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I was reopened when the government discovered it only owned part of the parking lot.


 and because of spite, Obama ordered it closed when he had no authority to do so but ordered it closed anyway. If I remember correctly, those who operate Mt. Vernon refused to follow Obama's demands and opened all except that portion of the parking lot IN SPITE OF Obama's decree. The operators followed the LAW and not Obama's edicts.

Of course, susan doesn't know or remember anything about that.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> They only support the economy because Nancy Pelosi says so. If SNAP and unemployment support the economy, then the economy would be growing. It is not. SNAP doubled under this administration and unemployment was extended to 99 weeks, but the economy stayed stagnant. It has just lately begun to show some growth despite this administrations "best" efforts.[/quote
> 
> The problem is this administrations best efforts have been blocked by the republicans. Remember the meeting they had saying they would block everything he tried to do. He was elected by the people, so why would they think they have the right to do that? How do you know it isn't snap and unemployment that has brought the economy back as far as it has been able to come. All republicans keep talking about the increase in snap, but WHY did it increase. Ya think joblessness had something to do with that? Ya think Bush crashing the economy had something to do with that? This congress has passed 55 bills. The two chambers combined have spent about 36 hours per week in session, yet they have only passed one law on average each week  and many of those have been relatively inconsequential. Bridges have been named, veterans affairs hospitals dedicated, and old laws have been renewed. But little more. So where are the bills that would help our economy? Blocked by republicans, that's where, because they can't let President Obama succeed. Since they have never done this to a democrat before, I will use a different word than my usual one. Now it is racism.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Jokim said:


> Government does not create wealth. Free enterprise creates wealth and prosperity. Government destroys it through regulation and taxation!! :thumbdown:


Ya, so when Bush and the republicans got rid of regulations on the banks, that really helped our economy, didn't it.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

NJG said:


> Ya, so when Bush and the republicans got rid of regulations on the banks, that really helped our economy, didn't it.


Banks aren't the only part of the economy that are regulated. The EPA does it's share to strangle the economy.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

vannavanna said:


> Yes problems are always on the horizon depending on where one gets their news from. AnE depts. have waiting times of 6 hours or 5mins if you have breathing difficulties. I have a daughter in charge of a stroke ward with sometimes only one helper, then I have a DinL a District nurse who has time to chat with patients. I was happy to pay when working and am now happy for free treatment now retired. Our National Health is the best in the world.


Our area emergency rooms have a waiting time of 8 to 12 hours, even if there are no other patients there. DH went to one with chest pain, was told after 8 hours that it was a gall bladder attack, and sent home. He learned 7 years later that it was a heart attack. His daughter has had 6, yes, 6 back surgeries which all failed; I have no clue as to why she kept consenting to yet another. This was all prior to Obama's arrival on the political scene, so I'd say it's obvious we needed health care reform.

My own experience locally was to spend three days in the hospital following an automobile accident. I was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and heart problems, probably because the local hospital had a new Cardiac Care Unit. Wouldn't you have thought that they would notice a BP of 70/45? Not until I became unconscious--it was due to being on BP medication and kept on it after losing 80 pounds in spite of my repeated requests to my (former) physician to at least reduce the dosage. Ultimately the diagnosis was changed to a concussion. Although I repeatedly asked to be seen by a neurologist, it never happened until I was well enough to seek one out on my own--in another city. Look out for age profiling, ladies and gentlemen. Tests ruled out Alzheimer's and the cardiac cath showed nothing. Our medical system is a lot like the Twilight Zone.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Your words to me mentioned taxes charged on utility bills for "Bush phones" when I and others were discussing "Obama phones" which are CELL phones which were not given out by Reagan during his terms.
> 
> Obama, his Admin and the passing of Obamacare contributed greatly to increased taxes for OBAMA CELL PHONES which is exactly my comments and the discussion I had with others. I have no idea why you cannot comprehend that which you read or you'd continued lies about my posts; nor do I care.
> 
> ...


OMG, OMG, OMG. My comment pertained to the fact that you continue to call them Obama phones and the program was not started by President Obama. I was just curious if you complained about the phones when Bush was in office and I would suggest the answer is no. You and Joey keep saying the phones during the Reagan terms were land lines and these are cell phones, but what difference does that make? None. They are still provided for the same reason and the same way.

The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration, but you continue to call them Obama phones, because you enjoy slamming our president any way you can. Calling them the Obama phone is a lie, so yes, you are a liar and a hypocrite, because when two people do the same thing and you think one is wrong and the other is right, that is hypocritical.

I do not have to ask your permission to post on this site and I never will. If you choose to ignore me that would be heaven. Why don't you do that.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> If that's so, then why was access to Mt. Vernon blocked? The property is privately owned with only a portion of the parking lot publicly owned. It was done out of spite.


It was probably because it is administered by the national park service, and those people were told not to come to work.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Wrong as usual. The military had the equipment that was available at the time. It was up graded as new equipment was ready.
> President Bush would not allow photographs of the caskets returning home, for respect to the families of the military members killed. How would you like for the camera to be around and have pictures of you in your grief broadcast on National TV if it was your son or daughter or husband in one of those caskets?
> 
> As far as the government shut down, It was all Obama's doing. He was the one who refuse to negotiate. It was "his way or the highway." The republicans were right. The ACA should have been delayed for a year, then the 6+million Americans would know if they have health insurance today. Obama chose to make the shutdown as painful as possible for everyone. It cost about $24,000,000 to do it. (the amount is approximate).


"I'm the Commander, see ... I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President... _ don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." George Bush.

For one thing, they did not have properly armored vehicles, and they did not have to invade Iraq until they were ready or not at all.

Soldiers have been coming back for months now, repeatedly telling us that there are equipment shortages and problems, and the Department of Defense has continuously downplayed it.

It took over a year and a half into this war and a public embarrassment before they realized this. We've got hundreds of veterans in our organization who continue to bang on this issue, and we receive no response.

We've got a soldier whose mother had to send him a flak jacket through the mail because he didn't have it. Forty-thousand troops went into operation Iraqi freedom without body armor, they had inadequate body armor. Who was held accountable?

I worked at Lenscrafters at the time and I had many soldiers come in to buy glasses and paying for them themselves or parents paying for them and some Lenscrafters provided. They were not prepared.

"We should honor, not hide, flag-draped coffins," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. "They are a symbol of the respect, honor and dignity that our fallen heroes deserve."

One mother said: "When Ken came home, I never got that photograph of him returning to his home country, the country that he loved so much," Meredith says.

When her son, Lt. Ken Ballard returned to Dover the military would not allow even his mother to have a picture.

"I just wanted to see it," she says. "I just wanted to know that he was being taken care of.

the new policy will give families a choice of whether to admit the press to ceremonies at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, the entry point to the United States for the caskets of overseas war dead.

President Barack Obama asked for a re-examination of the blanket ban and supports the decision to change it, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

"I have always believed that the decision as to how to honor our fallen heroes should be left up to the families," Vice President Joe Biden said. "The past practice didn't account for a family's wishes and I believed that was wrong."

If I had a son or daughter coming back in a coffin, it should be my decision if I want cameras around.

The reason there was a government shutdown was because President Obama wouldn't not only negotiate on the ACA, but because he wouldn't get rid of it completely. You know that is what they were after. If it had been delayed a year, they would have spent that whole year doing everything they could to make it impossible to implement after the year was up, no doubt about that. It was already the law, and the supreme court agreed. The republicans were just acting like spoiled brats because they couldn't get their way. You tell me how many democrats voted to shut down the government and then tell me again who shut down the government. It was republicans, and the $24,000,000 is on their shoulders. The ones who talk all the time about cutting spending, ya right!_


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> You can't be serious? Do the democrats have control of the house? Do the democrats have a 60 vote control of the senate. Because of the filibuster, they need 60 votes to pass a bill in the senate, and the republicans will vote against any bill brought up by democrats even if they think it is a good idea. Also the president has had an awful time getting any appointments approved until the filibuster was changed for appointments. Past presidents were able to make appointments so why not President Obama? I am very glad Harry changed the filibuster rule. It should have been done long ago. He trusted republicans when they gave their word that they wouldn't filibuster appointments, but they lied, so he had no choice. Do you not pay attention to what is going on in Washington? Republicans control the house. I don't know any other way to say that.


I am not sure why you bother, NJG, anyone who is a US citizen (she is, I believe, or purports to be) who doesn't understand the separation of the branches of gov't is really worth wasting your time on?
I understand, believe me I do, the ease of getting sucked into those ridiculous conversations. It is foolish. She is sick and we do her a disservice when we feed that illness.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> George Bush did not close the parks and Monuments in 1990, only the National Parks and visitor centers.
> 
> Clinton did close the parks and monuments in 1995.
> 
> Maybe closer attention is needed.


Ya, turn things around so you don't look so silly. Didn't work. I read the previous posts.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Jokim said:


> Banks aren't the only part of the economy that are regulated. The EPA does it's share to strangle the economy.


Did the epa or the banks cause the crash in 08?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Who is the foolish one. I told you I was in Washington DC on Dec 26, 1995. I was a witness to the Government shutdown,
> 
> The one in 1990 was minimal.
> 
> ...


Of course I can--and will if you'll actually read through the documents posted. Why don't we start with this?

MD 4.5 Contingency Plans for Periods of Lapsed Appropriations

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Directive and Handbook 4.5 replace Manual Chapter and Appendix 1302 and are being 
revised to reflect the current NRC organizational structure and government-wide guidance. 
Significant revisions include the separation of the Chief Financial Officer function from the 
Executive Director for Operations; a new organizational responsibilities and delegations of 
authority subsection for the Inspector General; incorporation of revisions to the Antideficiency 
Act and guidance from the Department of Justice regarding the definition of emergencies 
involving the safety of human life or the protection of property; and an update to the list of 
NRC functions excepted during an initial shutdown.

I. INTRODUCTION 
A. Background 
1. On April 25, 1980, the Attorney General issued an opinion that the language and 
legislative history of the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341 et seq.) 
unambiguously prohibits agency officials from incurring obligations in the 
absence of appropriations. The opinion also states that under the authority of the 
Antideficiency Act, Federal officers may incur minimal obligations necessary for 
the orderly termination of their agencys functions. See Management Directive 
(MD) 4.2, Administrative Control of Funds, for further guidance regarding the 
Antideficiency Act. 
2. On September 30, 1980, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) circulated a memorandum to the heads of all departments and agencies 
delineating activities that by law could continue during a period of exhaustion of 
funds. Essentially, the memorandum and subsequent guidance stipulated that 
agencies may continue to 
(a) Provide for national security, including the conduct of foreign relations essential to 
the national security and safety of life and property; 
(b) Provide for the performance of existing contract obligations under no-year 
appropriations or multi-year appropriations that have not expired; 
(c) Conduct essential activities to the extent that they protect life and property, including 
(i) Activities essential to ensure continued public health and safety, including safe 
use of food and drugs and safe use of hazardous materials; 
(ii) Protection of Federal lands, buildings, equipment, and other property owned by 
the United States; 
(iii) Law enforcement and criminal investigations; 
(iv) Emergency and disaster assistance; DH 4.5 CONTINGENCY 
(v) Activities that ensure production of power and maintenance of power 
distribution; and 
(d) Provide support services necessary to continue the above essential functions. 
3. On January 16, 1981, the Attorney General issued another opinion regarding agency 
shutdown that clarified and broadened the scope of the April opinion. This opinion 
states that the Attorney General had approved the activities listed in OMBs 
memorandum of September 30, 1980, that could continue during a period of 
exhaustion of funds. 
(a) The Attorney Generals opinion expanded the functions permissible as part of an 
orderly shutdown to include 
(i) Providing for the emergency protection of an agencys property by its own 
employees until such protection can be arranged by another agency with 
appropriations; 
(ii) Complying with statutes providing for the rights of employees and the 
protection of Government information; 
(iii) Transferring any matters within the agencys jurisdiction that are also under the 
jurisdiction of another agency that Congress has funded; and 
(iv) Incurring obligations for the above functions only to the minimum extent 
necessary to fulfill an agencys legal duties. 
(b) The opinion also states that the level of obligations incurred for shutdown 
functions should be justified based upon the length of time that the shutdown 
is expected to last.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> and because of spite, Obama ordered it closed when he had no authority to do so but ordered it closed anyway. If I remember correctly, those who operate Mt. Vernon refused to follow Obama's demands and opened all except that portion of the parking lot IN SPITE OF Obama's decree. The operators followed the LAW and not Obama's edicts.
> 
> Of course, susan doesn't know or remember anything about that.


Of course Obama had the authority--in fact, he would have been breaking the law if he hadn't ordered all non-essential services closed down. The Anti-Deficiency Act, as interpreted by the Attorney General on April 25, 1980, forbids government agencies from taking additional debt in the event of a government shutdown. The only exceptions are essentials services, as listed in the post above--national parks, monuments and yes, parking lots, do not fall into that category.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> This was amended and put into effect after 1990 shutdown. then, "...forbids government agencies from taking additional debt in the event of a government shutdown. " I wonder who decided the government was to take additional debt, by employing people to install the blockade by the monuments.


Obviously you haven't bothered to read the posted material. It was Benjamin R. Civiletti, Attorney General in 1980, who decreed that "under the authority of the Antideficiency Act, Federal officers may incur minimal obligations necessary for 
the orderly termination of their agencys functions."


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> This was amended and put into effect after 1990 shutdown. then, "...forbids government agencies from taking additional debt in the event of a government shutdown. " I wonder who decided the government was to take additional debt, by employing people to install the blockade by the monuments.
> 
> Then it is the Office of Management and Budget that decides what part of government is nonessential. It sure was essential to close off the WWII Memorial to WWI Vets.


Joey, they are idiots. Mt. Vernon isn't maintained as a division of the government and Obama has zero control over its operations, then, now and in the future. He attempted to close it for spite PERIOD. AND didn't get away with it.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

NJG said:


> Ya, so when Bush and the republicans got rid of regulations on the banks, that really helped our economy, didn't it.


Did the epa or the banks cause the crash in 08?(quote NJG)

I will repeat:

Government does not create wealth. Free enterprise creates wealth and prosperity. Government destroys it through regulation and taxation!! 
(and redistribution)
:thumbdown: :thumbdown:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> It has been amended several times, the last one I read was from 1990 after Bush's mini shutdown. So your version is outdated.


Of course it is, and she doesn't know this stuff, she looks it up and makes it up as she goes.



joeysomma said:


> No matter what the regulations say, Obama will do what ever he wants, no matter what the law says. Including whatever he can to hurt the American people the most. Most apparent is what happened to the WWII vets. That was inexcusable. Then what he did to the school children that made the trip to Washington DC, and he decided that because of sequestration, they could not take a tour of the White House. "Big Meany."


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Jokim said:


> Did the epa or the banks cause the crash in 08?(quote NJG)
> 
> I will repeat:
> 
> ...


I can name two Democrats that were responsible for the housing and banking and Wall Street crises that set this country upon the path to financial ruin: Dodd and Frank

Thank the Lord both are out-of-office. But much like Obama, it will take decades to reverse the damages these Democrat jerks pressed upon America.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I can name two Democrats that were responsible for the housing and banking and Wall Street crises that set this country upon the path to financial ruin: Dodd and Frank
> 
> Thank the Lord both are out-of-office. But much like Obama, it will take decades to reverse the damages these Democrat jerks pressed upon America.


Thank you for raising those two names. There will be more as Obamacare creates its ugly consequences.
It seems to me that for the last 50 yrs or so, the Republicans were stuck with, or had to repair, residual damage left over from a dem. administration. And the Republicans were blamed for creating that damage, to boot!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It has been amended several times, the last one I read was from 1990 after Bush's mini shutdown. So your version is outdated.


Not in the least, sweetheart. The version I posted was approved on January 3, 2012 and expires on January 3, 2017.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Joey, they are idiots. Mt. Vernon isn't maintained as a division of the government and Obama has zero control over its operations, then, now and in the future. He attempted to close it for spite PERIOD. AND didn't get away with it.


Very true. Mount Vernon is run by a private foundation. It was only one little sliver of road, and it is never protected by Federal government. They chose to cause pain to visitors. They chose to hire people to put up barricades up around the open air monuments. In fact, it took more money and staff to close open air monument. I am surprised they didn't spend money to drain the Reflection Pool, and then blame Republicans for polluting the swamp DC is built on. This is an example of what the Federal Government thinks of living on a fixed income.. they ignore it and print more money that we don't have.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> No website only your opinion, I an definitely NOT YOUR SWEATHEAT, YOU DEGRADE YOUR SELF WITH THOSE COMMENTS.


No, you definitely aren't my "SWEATHEAT" (perish the thought)

On the more serious side, I fail to see how official government documents can be interpreted as an opinion. Still, if it's links you're asking for....

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34680.pdf


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

grandmann said:


> I'm trying to get on Obama Care I keep getting a clich. In the mean time the Ins that I got from my Co. that I worked for has gone up so high that my whole SS is gone. Thank God we have my hubby's SS to live on.


I am really sorry to hear this. Have you be able to use the phone number? I read some where you could also sign up by phone. As I am not having the problems you are, don't know what to say to help you? I still am on the insurance that my husband got through work. We only had a ten dollar raise this year. Hope you are able to get help, it seems to be such a mess with what is going on with ACA.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

NJG said:


> Part of the problem is that republican groups like the Koch Brothers have spent millions to try to scare people, especially young people, from getting insurance. What person in their right mind would think it was a good idea to be without insurance. Of course, while they are doing this to try and make the ACA fail, you can bet they have good insurance. What is that word I always use to describe the republicans, oh ya hypocrite.


I did not post to you nor do I want to hear what you may think. I was asking a lady from Britian what was happening there. I never said anything bad to offend any one. So why do you start posting to me at all.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> They are only opinions unless you give their source.
> 
> from your source:
> 
> ...


No, nothing--except for the fact that government shutdowns are regulated by the Antideficiency Act, and the longer the shutdown is expected to last the tighter the restrictions placed on government agencies. Would you really have liked the monuments to remain open while agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the EPA had to be half-shuttered or closed down altogether in accordance with the law? Just where do your priorities lie?


----------



## WindingRoad (May 7, 2013)

NJG said:


> So please tell me what difference that makes. My post was about rich congressmen/women receiving farm subsidies and at the same time voting to cut food stamps for the poor. Also rich congressmen/women going on overseas trips, on taxpayers dollars, and having $166 daily allowance for meals, and at the same time voting to cut food stamps. Weather the richest congressmen/women are democrats or republicans has nothing to do with what I said. It has to do with this attitude republicans have about their lack of empathy for those less fortunate. If the democrats vote to cut food stamps, then they would be in the same group--hypocrites.


It makes a big difference to you when it's pointed out that the Dems are the rich one's. As I said the libs will give you the shirt off someone else's back . Every time.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Just want to say something to those on Fix Incomes.

It is very cold in this state and I do mean cold as it is in other states.

We have a program here that is free. It is called Energy assitances. They will help you set up payment plan. They will also come to your home ect. and check out your furnace, and insultation ect. and it is free. I would check out your local power company. It is worth it to see what is available. There are so many out there that try setting their heat lower and get so cold. Also there have been people who either freeze to death or die from extreme heat. 
So hope all will be safe and think about checking this out.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Wrong again, you are the hypocrite, also the liar because you said you wouldn't respond to me again. I see you did in your above post.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Jokim said:


> Did the epa or the banks cause the crash in 08?(quote NJG)
> 
> I will repeat:
> 
> ...


You still didn't answer. I didn't ask you if government created wealth or not. You don't have the guts to answer so you try to turn things around when you know very well that the banks and all their crooked deals was the cause.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Not in the least, sweetheart. The version I posted was approved on January 3, 2012 and expires on January 3, 2017.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The only topic of discussion was if the Washington Parks and monuments were shut down in 1990 by Bush.


Wrong, Joey. You challenged me to produce the name of the law that regulates government shutdowns. I did.

It's called the Antideficiency Act.

Now repeat it ten times.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> I did not post to you nor do I want to hear what you may think. I was asking a lady from Britian what was happening there. I never said anything bad to offend any one. So why do you start posting to me at all.


You were telling her about young people not signing up, but really not telling her the all the truth, now were you. I don't really care if you want to hear what I think or not. I wanted the lady to hear the truth. There are millions of dollars being spent to try to destroy the ACA instead of trying to help everyone get healthcare. What kind of compassionate country does that make us look like?


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

NJG said:


> You still didn't answer. I didn't ask you if government created wealth or not. You don't have the guts to answer so you try to turn things around when you know very well that the banks and all their crooked deals was the cause.


Gov't agencies, such Freddy Mac, etc.. using bank mortgages, made shady deals for which the top brass in those agencies was richly rewarded. The government destroys wealth, it does not create it. It can print all the money it wants, but it's worthless money unless it's backed up by wealth created by our country's citizens.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

NJG said:


> You were telling her about young people not signing up, but really not telling her the all the truth, now were you. I don't really care if you want to hear what I think or not. I wanted the lady to hear the truth. There are millions of dollars being spent to try to destroy the ACA instead of trying to help everyone get healthcare. What kind of compassionate country does that make us look like?


I've read comments by KP members not ensnared in the political threads--many from Canada, England, and Australia are 1) amazed that America hasn't had any form of universal health care in place until now, and 2) aghast that the ACA is so controversial.

I know a few of the conservatives here are from Canada--West Coast Kitty is one--and I really wonder if they themselves would like to see their publicly-funded health care system abolished and replaced with one like ours in the pre-ACA days.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Jokim said:


> Did the epa or the banks cause the crash in 08?(quote NJG)
> 
> I will repeat:
> 
> ...


So were the banks using free enterprise at that time to create their own wealth, cause they certainly weren't thinking of anyone else. Bush did get rid of some regulations on the banks and we all witnessed the results. 
How did that work for you?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

alcameron said:


> And the repubs spent $40 million in advertising to make people believe the ACA was a disaster. Just think how THAT money could have been spent.
> I guess the spirit of the miracle of Christmas bypassed some people. Still just as nasty and negative as usual.
> P.S. When will you admit that the government shutdown was the work of the Tea Party and super conservative repubs? Your prejudices won't allow you to see the truth for one minute.


Not even when they are shown on TV bragging about it, al.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> You were telling her about young people not signing up, but really not telling her the all the truth, now were you. I don't really care if you want to hear what I think or not. I wanted the lady to hear the truth. There are millions of dollars being spent to try to destroy the ACA instead of trying to help everyone get healthcare. What kind of compassionate country does that make us look like?


Could it be that because of the ACA a lot of young people will be covered by their parent's policies until they are 26?
sooner or later they will sign up.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Just want to say something to those on Fix Incomes.
> 
> It is very cold in this state and I do mean cold as it is in other states.
> 
> ...


They offer that here too, yarnie. I'm afraid to see my next 
Excel bill. The furnace has been running almost non stop since Thanksgiving. When the avg temp is below zero, it really cranks up the bill.
Are people getting a blue pallor like here in MN? The kids are starting to look like Smurfs.
Get ready for a warm day and then even colder temps coming in in the next week. I don't know about Madison because you are south of us, but we have been averaging 15 below zero for 6 weeks now. That does not include the wind chill factor.
Stay safe and warm.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Not even when they are shown on TV bragging about it, al.


Braggarts they are--or were, before the backlash--about the government shutdown too.

"We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is." Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)

"This is my idea of fun." Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) on the government shutdown

"I said, like 9/11, 'let's roll!'" Rep. John Culberson

"We're very excited. It's exactly what we wanted, and we got it." Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Braggarts they are--or were, before the backlash--about the government shutdown too.
> 
> "We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is." Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
> 
> ...


And one said " I didn't think they would do it, but we got what we wanted."

What Michele Bachmann needs is a one way ticket to Switzerland and to be deprogrammed by Marcus.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Jokim said:


> Gov't agencies, such Freddy Mac, etc.. using bank mortgages, made shady deals for which the top brass in those agencies was richly rewarded. The government destroys wealth, it does not create it. It can print all the money it wants, but it's worthless money unless it's backed up by wealth created by our country's citizens.


Blame Fanny and Freddy if you want but the big banks continue to trade in derivatives, but on an even larger scale than before, but still with a lack of transparency. I read that derivative trading was totaling nationally at $700 Trillion and that is 10 times the size of the entire world economy. How would we ever recover from that? But by all means don't put any regulations on those banks!!!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> Blame Fanny and Freddy if you want but the big banks continue to trade in derivatives, but on an even larger scale than before, but still with a lack of transparency. I read that derivative trading was totaling nationally at $700 Trillion and that is 10 times the size of the entire world economy. How would we ever recover from that? But by all means don't put any regulations on those banks!!!


If they do deregulate the banks, it would be an economical nightmare.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> And one said " I didn't think they would do it, but we got what we wanted."
> 
> What Michele Bachmann needs is a one way ticket to Switzerland and to be deprogrammed by Marcus.


Couldn't agree more--she'd be the resident cuckoo in their national clock.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I am not sure why you bother, NJG, anyone who is a US citizen (she is, I believe, or purports to be) who doesn't understand the separation of the branches of gov't is really worth wasting your time on?
> I understand, believe me I do, the ease of getting sucked into those ridiculous conversations. It is foolish. She is sick and we do her a disservice when we feed that illness.


Yes, I do realize that. I see such stupidity and I think she can't really believe that, impossible, but then it sounds like she does. I will try to just move on. She is not worth it, I know.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

With all the talk about living on a fixed income, I wonder how all the conservatives on here would feel if the republicans gained control of the house, senate and presidency and they did exactly what they have wanted to do since day 1. That is cut social security and then privatize it. Remember Bush tried to do it. Republicans preparing to run for president are talking about letting younger people opt out of social security and invest in the stock market. Now if we have another collapse of the economy, what happens then? Most of them have been careful to say they want to preserve social security, but what happen when there isn't enough coming in to continue to pay out as usual, and what happens if it is privatized and the economy crashes again. Remember, the big banks are still doing the same things they were. 

They also want to privatize Medicare or give vouchers to use to purchase insurance. Of course by this time they would have repealed the ACA, so we wouldn't have that. If your voucher didn't cover the cost of your insurance, and I am betting it wouldn't, then what? 

Now for all those on here that keep saying SS wasn't intended to be your only source of income for your retirement, well this isn't for you, you can just move on. For the ones who rely on SS and for the ones who lost a lot of their retirement in 08 because of the big banks and their trading in derivatives, well, what will you do? Again, let me reinforce, the big banks are still doing the same things that caused the last collapse, and if we are completely controlled by republicans, they will get rid of all those nasty regulations so it will be even easier to do what they want. 

Just something to think about and wonder if anyone has any answers.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I asked for the law that requires the Washington parks and memorials to be closed. There was nothing requiring them to be closed in the website you provided. You did not provide a website for the one you copied. Also it said nothing about the parks and monuments being *required* to close.
> 
> I said nothing about the law that regulates government shutdown,


Susan, I think she has her needle stuck!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I asked for the law that requires the Washington parks and memorials to be closed. There was nothing requiring them to be closed in the website you provided. You did not provide a website for the one you copied. Also it said nothing about the parks and monuments being *required* to close.
> 
> Copy the law, underline or bold the part that says the "Washington's parks and memorials must close during a government shutdown" and provide the website.
> 
> I said nothing about the law that regulates government shutdown,


She won't be able to so she'll change the subject, call you stupid, mentally ill and a racist. Aren't you glad you are not her? I am.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

None of these definitions below are mine. Anyone is able to look up the definition of "Fixed Income." I realize the majority of Libs posting in this thread understand nothing about the economy and/or finance, as I've been in many threads prior where financial discussion was attempted and the Libs didn't have the acumen to understand which they proved and admitted, but this thread turned political once NJG posted and has never been about "Fixed Income" before or since.

Of course, this thread doesn't have to be about "Fixed Income" and can be about whatever, but, I entered the conversation to discuss Fixed Income as that is the title of this thread. A discussion of Fixed Income has not taken place, so I'll contemplate beginning a thread on Fixed Income to assist those who may be interested in learning about Fixed Income.

Best to anyone who is attempting to survive solely on Social Security; I do feel for you. However, SS was never intended to be one's _sole_ source of support in retirement and fails miserably to fit that bill (as you well know).

_Definition of 'Fixed Income_

A type of investing or budgeting style for which real return rates or periodic income is received at regular intervals at reasonably predictable levels. Fixed-income budgeters and investors are often one and the same - typically retired individuals who rely on their investments to provide a regular, stable income stream. This demographic tends to invest heavily in fixed-income investments because of the reliable returns they offer.

_Investopedia explains 'Fixed Income_

Individuals who live on set amounts of periodically paid income face the risk that inflation will erode their spending power. Fixed-income investors receive set, regular payments that face the same inflation risk.

The most common type of fixed-income security is the bond; bonds are issued by federal governments, local municipalities or major corporations.

_Fixed income
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_

Fixed income refers to any type of investment under which the borrower/issuer is obliged to make payments of a fixed amount on a fixed schedule: for example, if the borrower has to pay interest at a fixed rate once a year, and to repay the principal amount on maturity.

Types of Fixed Income Investments:
*Annuities-* Generally used for retirement, these are investments where you deposit some initial sum of money and then you are guaranteed a check a every month after a time period. There are some penalties with withdrawing funds early

*Coupon Bonds-* bearer bonds The coupon represents annual or semi-annual interest payments to be received until maturity. These coupons must be presented to the issuer to receive payments

*Municipal Bonds-* These bonds are backed by the state or local government to fund projects such as highways, school, and hospitals. They have a large minimum investment and return a specified yield after a designated period of time.

*Certificates of Deposit or CDs-* FDIC insured investments that offer fixed rate of return Useful if you are looking for a time-specific savings plan or a low risk investment for your portfolio.

*Money market accounts-* These are like savings accounts in you can withdraw from your account a certain number of times per month. They differ because of a higher interest rate and a higher minimum balance. They are also FDIC Insured.

*Treasury Bonds-* Require a $1,000 minimum investment. They are fixed-interest U.S. government debt security with a maturity of more than 10 years. Interest payments are made semi-annually and the income that holders receive is only taxed at the federal level.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

NJG said:


> You were telling her about young people not signing up, but really not telling her the all the truth, now were you. I don't really care if you want to hear what I think or not. I wanted the lady to hear the truth. There are millions of dollars being spent to try to destroy the ACA instead of trying to help everyone get healthcare. What kind of compassionate country does that make us look like?


I was telling her what I heard on national news cast ABC news and that is all I said. you took it to a different level. I was telling her what I beleive was the truth . Your name calling is getting out of hand on here lady. I want to learn about her country and what is happening there. For you to go off as you did. Do you think it bods well what other nations are seeing. You rant about things you do not know how I meant or feel. So finial words unless you know where a person is coming from or meant would step back before posting some of your crude remarks.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> They offer that here too, yarnie. I'm afraid to see my next
> Excel bill. The furnace has been running almost non stop since Thanksgiving. When the avg temp is below zero, it really cranks up the bill.
> Are people getting a blue pallor like here in MN? The kids are starting to look like Smurfs.
> Get ready for a warm day and then even colder temps coming in in the next week. I don't know about Madison because you are south of us, but we have been averaging 15 below zero for 6 weeks now. That does not include the wind chill factor.
> Stay safe and warm.


Know what you mean. We have a wind Chill warning almost every other day. Furnace going full blast. Comes on every 2 min. after going off. Like you sure the bill will be higher than normal. Felt like Feb weather begining in Nov. We are to have a heat wave tomorrow 28 degrees then 25 below that night into next day. Nothing above 0 next week. Just plain cold. Maybe it means we will have an early spring as we started with Feb. weather so early. thinking this way 8 weeks till March and hope we can get around to 30 degrees by then. Eight weeks sounds better to me then what has already pass.
You stay warm too. Best to become house bound when it gets this cold.
Have you seen The Christmas Story movie? Do not know if I got the name right. the little guy in snow suit arms out bundle up so tight if he falls down can't get up. Well thats how children and adults look here. Except Teenagers think they do not feel the cold. :XD: They are telling parents if they feel it is to cold for the children to keep them home. Have to agree, in country can't imagine children standing outside waiting for bus to come.


----------



## nanacari (Aug 22, 2011)

This started as a question about fixed incomes and how people are coping with it. Then religion got in and then politics. These are both lose-lose topics as opinions cannot be changed. With all this wrangling we portray ourselves to people of other countries as extremely disagreeable and contentious.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

nanacari said:


> This started as a question about fixed incomes and how people are coping with it. Then religion got in and then politics. These are both lose-lose topics as opinions cannot be changed. With all this wrangling we portray ourselves to people of other countries as extremely disagreeable and contentious.


you are right, we should be helping each other with fix incomes.

Life is hard enough now for all of us, and sharing how we each get by I find interesting and have learn some new ideas.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Copy the law, underline or bold the part that says the "Washington's parks and memorials must close during a government shutdown" and provide the website.


I believe you're being purposely obtuse on the matter, but I'll try once more to approach it in a fashion you can perhaps understand.

1) Under the Antideficiency Act, all "unnecessary" federal agencies must cease or severely curtail operations until funding is provided. Under law the heads of these agencies must take into consideration whether the services they provide are truly vital for health and safety, and how long the shutdown is expected to drag on.

2) The October shutdown was of such gravity and magnitude that agencies like the EPA and the Department for Homeland Security were forced to curtail their activities or shut down completely for the duration.

3) The National Park Service had not a legal leg to stand on to justify keeping the national parks and monuments open. No judge would have bought the argument that full access to the Lincoln Memorial was crucial to American's health and safety when such agencies as the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board had been shuttered. The head of the agency (Jonathon Jarvis) and the personnel and staff--clerks, park rangers, guards, maintenance crews--could have been fined and/or imprisoned under the statutes of the Antideficiency Act had they attempted to carry on business as usual.

Is it explicitly spelled out which agencies must close during a government shutdown? Obviously not--the restrictions placed on government agencies are not nearly as severe during a shutdown expected to be resolved in a matter of hours or days as in one that's expected to drag on for weeks.

But no one without a political bone to pick is more concerned about access to the national parks than they are about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ability to function. It simply defies belief.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> I've read comments by KP members not ensnared in the political threads--many from Canada, England, and Australia are 1) amazed that America hasn't had any form of universal health care in place until now, and 2) aghast that the ACA is so controversial.
> 
> I know a few of the conservatives here are from Canada--West Coast Kitty is one--and I really wonder if they themselves would like to see their publicly-funded health care system abolished and replaced with one like ours in the pre-ACA days.


I will not stand by and let you pick out West Coast Kitty for what she sees and feels. She attacks no one and just stated her facts. Just as Designer did. I want to hear from all countries, not just your rants. That is why I thank lady from Britian how she sees it. We can't learn if we don't try to understand what is happening in other countrys with their health care. So stop blaming others when they have not said what you and only you want to hear but what they see as to their health care.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

NJG said:


> Susan, I think she has her needle stuck!


Yes, I'm afraid she has. But at least it's an interesting topic--the inner workings of the federal government have always fascinated me.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> I will not stand by and let you pick out West Coast Kitty for what she sees and feels. She attacks no one and just stated her facts. Just as Designer did. I want to hear from all countries, not just your rants. That is why I thank lady from Britian how she sees it. We can't learn if we don't try to understand what is happening in other countrys with their health care. So stop blaming others when they have not said what you and only you want to hear but what they see as to their health care.


I wasn't picking on West Coast Kitty in the slightest, Yarnie--she just happened to be the first person who popped into my head when I brought up the subject. I do get the impression that most Canadians, Brits, and Australians are more or less satisfied with their country's version of universal health care and don't wish to see it abolished--but like you I want to hear opinions from all sides. Health care is a serious matter, and we can never hear too much about the pro's and con's of each system.


----------



## momskii (Oct 25, 2012)

Scruffy's Mum said:


> And when you think, most people get paid either every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, with 52 weeks in a year there are actually 13 x 4 week (months) - does that make sense? Soc Sec is only 12 times a year. I know what I'm trying to say - but not sure I said it very well.


I know what you mean as I was one of those people who got the extra check. I retired on Dec 20, 2013 so I am now on a FIXED income. I also found that when SS increases the amount of money they give you, they also increase the amount of money you have to pay for Medicare, so you wind up even or behind. I am moving south as I can no longer afford to live in the North on SS.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I asked for the law that requires the Washington parks and memorials to be closed. There was nothing requiring them to be closed in the website you provided. You did not provide a website for the one you copied. Also it said nothing about the parks and monuments being *required* to close.
> 
> Copy the law, underline or bold the part that says the "Washington's parks and memorials must close during a government shutdown" and provide the website.
> 
> I said nothing about the law that regulates government shutdown,


Look up non-essential services in the federal gov't and you will have the answer you need. 
Then, perhaps, you can find some way to get back on something close to the topic.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

momskii said:


> I know what you mean as I was one of those people who got the extra check. I retired on Dec 20, 2013 so I am now on a FIXED income. I also found that when SS increases the amount of money they give you, they also increase the amount of money you have to pay for Medicare, so you wind up even or behind. I am moving south as I can no longer afford to live in the North on SS.


Perhaps when Medicare is rescinded it will be better, then you will have that 1300 dollars a year to put toward your medical expenses.


----------



## Scruffy's Mum (Feb 20, 2013)

momskii said:


> I know what you mean as I was one of those people who got the extra check. I retired on Dec 20, 2013 so I am now on a FIXED income. I also found that when SS increases the amount of money they give you, they also increase the amount of money you have to pay for Medicare, so you wind up even or behind. I am moving south as I can no longer afford to live in the North on SS.


South Carolina is chilly (at the moment) - but not like the North.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Still no website to support your claim. The only website you provided supported me.


No, there probably is no website to "support" my claim--only legal documents, government publications, and the like. Obviously you need a website like Fox or The Blaze to pre-chew such tasty morsels before spoonfeeding them to you.

And oh, I see you edited your initial post to add that there was no point in continuing this discussion. Frankly, I'm perfectly willing to keep on--you can use those websites that back up your claim that Obama was acting outside the law to close down the national parks and monuments, and I'll counter with those pesky legal documents and such that you continually dismiss.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Still no website to support your claim. The only website you provided supported me.
> 
> We might as well forget it as you are unable to prove your statement.


Since when are websites valid sources of correct information? Anyone can start a website on any topic for any reason. I sure don't get my reliable information that way.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

momskii said:


> I know what you mean as I was one of those people who got the extra check. I retired on Dec 20, 2013 so I am now on a FIXED income. I also found that when SS increases the amount of money they give you, they also increase the amount of money you have to pay for Medicare, so you wind up even or behind. I am moving south as I can no longer afford to live in the North on SS.


This year though, Medicare did not change. It stayed at 104.90 even though there were a lot of scarey emails saying it was going to be something like $246, all because of Obamacare, but that didn't happen, although I know a lot of people worried about it.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Scruffy's Mum said:


> South Carolina is chilly (at the moment) - but not like the North.


Here in Iowa today it is 12 degrees.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

NJG said:


> Here in Iowa today it is 12 degrees.


Ah, heat wave! We're only 11 in Michigan :~D!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Ah, heat wave! We're only 11 in Michigan :~D!


We seem to be getting a lot of snow too, but it has all been in manageable amounts. I think one was 6 inches, but the rest has been 2 to 4. I don't think that is so bad, but I am done for the year and rady to move on to something else.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

NJG said:


> We seem to be getting a lot of snow too, but it has all been in manageable amounts. I think one was 6 inches, but the rest has been 2 to 4. I don't think that is so bad, but I am done for the year and rady to move on to something else.


We are in a dead heat on snow; I was done for the year before we got it. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a fan of cold weather. The only reasons I live in Michigan are 1) I was born here, and 2) I can't afford to move. Having lived in Southern California and Southern Idaho as a military wife, I'd prefer either one because of the low humidity in both places. I guess I must be a desert person. Oh well, if wishes were fishes.....


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> soloweygirl said:
> 
> 
> > They only support the economy because Nancy Pelosi says so. If SNAP and unemployment support the economy, then the economy would be growing. It is not. SNAP doubled under this administration and unemployment was extended to 99 weeks, but the economy stayed stagnant. It has just lately begun to show some growth despite this administrations "best" efforts.[/quote
> ...


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The price of Medicare is determined by your other income.
> 
> http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/EN-05-10536.pdf


Yes, I know Joey, some will pay a higher premium because of more income, all part of the part D drug plan. However this does not affect most Americans, which tells you something about the income of most Americans.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> Our area emergency rooms have a waiting time of 8 to 12 hours, even if there are no other patients there. DH went to one with chest pain, was told after 8 hours that it was a gall bladder attack, and sent home. He learned 7 years later that it was a heart attack. His daughter has had 6, yes, 6 back surgeries which all failed; I have no clue as to why she kept consenting to yet another. This was all prior to Obama's arrival on the political scene, so I'd say it's obvious we needed health care reform.
> 
> My own experience locally was to spend three days in the hospital following an automobile accident. I was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and heart problems, probably because the local hospital had a new Cardiac Care Unit. Wouldn't you have thought that they would notice a BP of 70/45? Not until I became unconscious--it was due to being on BP medication and kept on it after losing 80 pounds in spite of my repeated requests to my (former) physician to at least reduce the dosage. Ultimately the diagnosis was changed to a concussion. Although I repeatedly asked to be seen by a neurologist, it never happened until I was well enough to seek one out on my own--in another city. Look out for age profiling, ladies and gentlemen. Tests ruled out Alzheimer's and the cardiac cath showed nothing. Our medical system is a lot like the Twilight Zone.


Do you really think incidents like this will all go away because of the ACA? That is part of the medical care given in every city. It happens, patients fall through the cracks, unfortunately. The ACA isn't going to make that stop just because it was passed.

Way before Obama's arrival on the political scene, health care reform was a concern in this country. It was nothing new with his appearance.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> The bills are most likely on the floor of the Senate where Harry Reid has refused to even consider them. Frank, Todd and Clinton all had a share to play in the lead up to the economy crashing. A fact that is always absent in your Bush bashing.


You can go back and blame everyone since the beginning of time and it won't make any difference. Bush put all his tax cuts in place and got rid of some regulations on the banks, and the bankers went crazy. What about the bills that Boehner won't bring to the floor. If he thinks something will pass, he just won't bring it to the floor, like immigration. A bill to stop the government shutdown passed the senate, but Boehner refused to bring it to the floor in the house because he said it would pass. They even changed the house rules late one night so no one else could bring it to the floor, so scared he was that they wouldn't get their shutdown, yet they blame the democrats for the shutdown. How crazy is that? Are both parties to blame for the gridlock? Of course they are. Everything has become so partisan that they are doing nothing, but never before has one party tried to destroy a president like the republicans have President Obama. From the day of his inauguration when they held their meeting. Why so much hate before he even took office? Hypocrites and racists.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Do you really think incidents like this will all go away because of the ACA? That is part of the medical care given in every city. It happens, patients fall through the cracks, unfortunately. The ACA isn't going to make that stop just because it was passed.
> 
> Way before Obama's arrival on the political scene, health care reform was a concern in this country. It was nothing new with his appearance.


No it was nothing new, but the insurance companies controlled the republicans and they had plenty of opportunity to make changes and refused to.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Do you really think incidents like this will all go away because of the ACA? That is part of the medical care given in every city. It happens, patients fall through the cracks, unfortunately. The ACA isn't going to make that stop just because it was passed.
> 
> Way before Obama's arrival on the political scene, health care reform was a concern in this country. It was nothing new with his appearance.


The difference is that Obama is the only one who has DONE ANYTHING about it.....


----------



## sumnerusa (Nov 9, 2011)

NJG said:


> Here in Iowa today it is 12 degrees.


Here in Toledo it's only 3 degrees... It's warmer in Alaska.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

sumnerusa said:


> Here in Toledo it's only 3 degrees... It's warmer in Alaska.


Whilst in outback Queensland the temperature has been hovering around 50C. Too tired to work out what that is in F, around 120 I think.

Just checked, 122F.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> The difference is that Obama is the only one who has DONE ANYTHING about it.....


Actually, when working the the ER, we noticed a drop in patients when they opened more urgent care centers. That was why several hospitals started opening their own "urgent care" parts during the day. At night all people came to the ER and we had many more people waiting a lot longer (obviously at ebb and flow as people needed). It has been shown through evidence based practice that urgent care centers do relieve the congestion in the city's ERs.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Actually, when working the the ER, we noticed a drop in patients when they opened more urgent care centers. That was why several hospitals started opening their own "urgent care" parts during the day. At night all people came to the ER and we had many more people waiting a lot longer (obviously at ebb and flow as people needed). It has been shown through evidence based practice that urgent care centers do relieve the congestion in the city's ERs.


I noticed an urgent care business in another section of the city the other day. I want to check it out. I have heard that some of them end up being VERY expensive.

1.(Please read the comments) 
http://www.wisebread.com/cost-comparison-emergency-rooms-vs-urgent-care
2.http://www.simplicityurgentcare.com/pricing/ Pretty good rates.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I noticed an urgent care business in another section of the city the other day. I want to check it out. I have heard that some of them end up being VERY expensive.
> 
> 1.(Please read the comments)
> http://www.wisebread.com/cost-comparison-emergency-rooms-vs-urgent-care
> 2.http://www.simplicityurgentcare.com/pricing/ Pretty good rates.


I think urgent care centers are an excellent idea. It's easy to imagine folks with insurance--young people, especially--not being seen often enough to have a regular doctor, and of course there's always the sprained ankle or child's ear infection that isn't a life-or-death situation but also can't wait for the doctor's office to open in the morning.

Besides saving folks money, these places might spare them a lot of unnecessary trauma as well. I had to take my mother to the emergency room a few times, and they're a HORROR. Like in a field hospital there's something awful happening on every side of you.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> I think urgent care centers are an excellent idea. It's easy to imagine folks with insurance--young people, especially--not being seen often enough to have a regular doctor, and of course there's always the sprained ankle or child's ear infection that isn't a life-or-death situation but also can't wait for the doctor's office to open in the morning.
> 
> Besides saving folks money, these places might spare them a lot of unnecessary trauma as well. I had to take my mother to the emergency room a few times, and they're a HORROR. Like in a field hospital there's something awful happening on every side of you.


You are quite right, the only glitch I can see would be the "does my insurance cover that" routine. They are perfect for young folks who have no chronic illness.


----------



## sumnerusa (Nov 9, 2011)

NJG said:


> You can go back and blame everyone since the beginning of time and it won't make any difference. Bush put all his tax cuts in place and got rid of some regulations on the banks, and the bankers went crazy. What about the bills that Boehner won't bring to the floor. If he thinks something will pass, he just won't bring it to the floor, like immigration. A bill to stop the government shutdown passed the senate, but Boehner refused to bring it to the floor in the house because he said it would pass. They even changed the house rules late one night so no one else could bring it to the floor, so scared he was that they wouldn't get their shutdown, yet they blame the democrats for the shutdown. How crazy is that? Are both parties to blame for the gridlock? Of course they are. Everything has become so partisan that they are doing nothing, but never before has one party tried to destroy a president like the republicans have President Obama. From the day of his inauguration when they held their meeting. Why so much hate before he even took office? Hypocrites and racists.


What about Grover Norquist? For the last five years he has been holding the Republican congress hostage!! He made them agree to vote against anything Obama and the Democrats brought to the floor.....if they did not, he would see they they would never again get re -elected. His main object is to see Obama fail. He admitted this on 60 MInutes or 20/20. That is bribery and I wonder why he is not serving a prison term.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

sumnerusa said:


> What about Grover Norquist? For the last five years he has been holding the Republican congress hostage!! He made them agree to vote against anything Obama and the Democrats brought to the floor.....if they did not, he would see they they would never again get re -elected. His main object is to see Obama fail. He admitted this on 60 MInutes or 20/20. That is bribery and I wonder why he is not serving a prison term.


I am not sure, sumnerusa, that you can bribe someone to do what is already what the plan is. 
These folks are in Congress for some other reason than public service if they are willing to sign away their responsibility to govern. Sad, really.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

sumnerusa said:


> What about Grover Norquist? For the last five years he has been holding the Republican congress hostage!! He made them agree to vote against anything Obama and the Democrats brought to the floor.....if they did not, he would see they they would never again get re -elected. His main object is to see Obama fail. He admitted this on 60 MInutes or 20/20. That is bribery and I wonder why he is not serving a prison term.


Right and he was never elected to anything. Wonder why some people feel so indebted to someone else that they no longer have a mind of their own? They turn into these wimpy little followers. I haven't heard much from him lately. Maybe he is loosing some of his control.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> You are quite right, the only glitch I can see would be the "does my insurance cover that" routine. They are perfect for young folks who have no chronic illness.


We have 2 urgent care facilities in my city. I agree with Susan that they are very convenient for the symptoms that shouldn't wait but don't need emergency care. Both have pharmacies and my insurance was good in both. For moms with small kids to those with aging parents, these are very convenient.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> Here in Iowa today it is 12 degrees.


Right now we are sitting at 26 above zero, but we have freezing rain. This weekend is going to be brutal. Glad I have a good supply of yarn.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You are quite right, the only glitch I can see would be the "does my insurance cover that" routine. They are perfect for young folks who have no chronic illness.


The other glitch is that most aren't familiar with your medical care or chart (depending on where you go, but with electrical database charting that us getting less). My son had an ear infection that didn't ever really go away for months, but the symptoms would abate with antibiotics so we would think it was getting better. We were in the urgent care quite a few times before he had his tubes put in. Our family also uses them often as we are rather accident prone or have the weirdest things pop up at off hours.

One of the great things about them is that now a lot of places are starting to do IV therapy. So if you end up with a stomach bug and need some hydration they can do it there instead of sitting for hours in a hospital waiting room (soooooo not fun). And we have one around here that has a migraine clinic, so they have the darkened room and other things that make a person with migraines in slightly less agony (I was in one of those rooms when I had a wicked migraine that wouldn't go away). Being in a hospital with a migraine is the worse! I swear, if there is a hell, that is what there waiting room is like and everybody has migraines.

The charging part can vary by place, but most of them now take all the major insurances and the insurances have a special copay. It's less than an ER but more than a regular doctor's visit..


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> We have 2 urgent care facilities in my city. I agree with Susan that they are very convenient for the symptoms that shouldn't wait but don't need emergency care. Both have pharmacies and my insurance was good in both. For moms with small kids to those with aging parents, these are very convenient.


I can definitely see that it was be a boon to people with small incidents to take care of. A few weeks ago, my gs fell up the stairs and had an inch long laceration on his chin. His doc's office said they don't do stitches, so don't even bring him in so as to avoid paying two copays if he did need stitches. 
It turned out he only needed to be glued, you can bet that I will be suggesting this to my daughter... just the difference in copay is worth it so long as they take her insurance.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Right now we are sitting at 26 above zero, but we have freezing rain. This weekend is going to be brutal. Glad I have a good supply of yarn.


It is allegedly 13 here and 3 in Boston, going to be a brutal day and then warmer for a day, I think, that being so that we can get rain on top of the snow to make a complete mess.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> It is allegedly 13 here and 3 in Boston, going to be a brutal day and then warmer for a day, I think, that being so that we can get rain on top of the snow to make a complete mess.


We are having 20 degrees here today, but Sun night it is suppose to be -5 and Monday the high is to be -15 and the low is -24. I am definitely staying home.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Looks like Chris Christie's "bridgegate" won't be going away any time soon. I would think this would make a big difference on him running for president. If he ordered this, out of retaliation he certainly shouldn't be president and if it was his appointed friend that did it, then he certainly can not be trusted to appoint responsible people. I think he is a bully and would hate to see the big mouth as president.

The George Washington Bridge lane closures that led to paralyzing gridlock in Fort Lee this past September were ordered by someone outside the Port Authority and possibly for an improper motive, said the state lawmaker leading the investigation into whether the closings were politically motivated.

In signaling that he plans to expand the investigation beyond the Port Authority, Wisniewski said that Wildstein did not act alone, but appears to have been following instructions from higher-ups.

The closures backed up traffic into the crowded borough for hours during a four-day period last September  including the Sept. 11 anniversary when police at the bridge are on high alert for terrorist attacks.

Soon after he found his boroughs narrow streets blocked with cars for hours, Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich said the traffic tie-ups were punitive.

http://www.northjersey.com/columnists/kelly/Kelly_Assemblyman_says_order_for_GWB_traffic_tieup_came_from_outside_Port_Authority.html?page=all


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

My insurance got religion!


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

NJG said:


> My insurance got religion!


Exactly right, otherwise it would be hilarious.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> With all the talk about living on a fixed income, I wonder how all the conservatives on here would feel if the republicans gained control of the house, senate and presidency and they did exactly what they have wanted to do since day 1. That is cut social security and then privatize it. Remember Bush tried to do it. Republicans preparing to run for president are talking about letting younger people opt out of social security and invest in the stock market. Now if we have another collapse of the economy, what happens then? Most of them have been careful to say they want to preserve social security, but what happen when there isn't enough coming in to continue to pay out as usual, and what happens if it is privatized and the economy crashes again. Remember, the big banks are still doing the same things they were.
> 
> They also want to privatize Medicare or give vouchers to use to purchase insurance. Of course by this time they would have repealed the ACA, so we wouldn't have that. If your voucher didn't cover the cost of your insurance, and I am betting it wouldn't, then what?
> 
> ...


Why shouldn't there be a choice? If they opt out, then they can't collect and should make other arrangements. It is their money and they should be able to use it as they see fit. There is no assurance that SS will be here when they are ready to retire. Anything can happen with the program. When it was established it wasn't meant to be a retirement fund as it was to be temporary.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Perhaps when Medicare is rescinded it will be better, then you will have that 1300 dollars a year to put toward your medical expenses.


There was no need for you to be obnoxious , Momskii was sharing her experience with SS and Medicare. She is entitled to express that opinion just as you are yours and it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Looks like Chris Christie's "bridgegate" won't be going away any time soon. I would think this would make a big difference on him running for president. If he ordered this, out of retaliation he certainly shouldn't be president and if it was his appointed friend that did it, then he certainly can not be trusted to appoint responsible people. I think he is a bully and would hate to see the big mouth as president.
> 
> The George Washington Bridge lane closures that led to paralyzing gridlock in Fort Lee this past September were ordered by someone outside the Port Authority and possibly for an improper motive, said the state lawmaker leading the investigation into whether the closings were politically motivated.
> 
> ...


To be fair, Chris Christie would not be the first politician to appoint some silly hack who put loyalty over scruples.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> There was no need for you to be obnoxious , Momskii was sharing her experience with SS and Medicare. She is entitled to express that opinion just as you are yours and it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not.


Read my mind.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> I think urgent care centers are an excellent idea. It's easy to imagine folks with insurance--young people, especially--not being seen often enough to have a regular doctor, and of course there's always the sprained ankle or child's ear infection that isn't a life-or-death situation but also can't wait for the doctor's office to open in the morning.
> 
> Besides saving folks money, these places might spare them a lot of unnecessary trauma as well. I had to take my mother to the emergency room a few times, and they're a HORROR. Like in a field hospital there's something awful happening on every side of you.


We've had urgent care facilities here for decades. The original one has been absorbed and renamed by the local hospital system. The biggest problem with that is that no one is ever certain which conditions are going to be decided to be urgent care, and which will be sent over to the emergency room--thus incurring charges at both. Doesn't seem quite fair to me. The published guidelines are very vague. The other urgent care facility is affiliated with a hospital system in another city, bringing follow up and other problems. Perhaps that explains why my own physician, affiliated with the local hospital system but located at a satellite office in a nearby town, sent out letters with instructions to take EVERYTHING through his office via telephone for clearance and direction first. That might work well if I can remember to do it. Twenty-five years of habit sometimes takes over under stress.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> We've had urgent care facilities here for decades. The original one has been absorbed and renamed by the local hospital system. The biggest problem with that is that no one is ever certain which conditions are going to be decided to be urgent care, and which will be sent over to the emergency room--thus incurring charges at both. Doesn't seem quite fair to me. The published guidelines are very vague. The other urgent care facility is affiliated with a hospital system in another city, bringing follow up and other problems. Perhaps that explains why my own physician, affiliated with the local hospital system but located at a satellite office in a nearby town, sent out letters with instructions to take EVERYTHING through his office via telephone for clearance and direction first. That might work well if I can remember to do it. Twenty-five years of habit sometimes takes over under stress.


That seems to be some sort of conflict of interest. I am surprised that MI allows a company to keep policies so vague that people are unsure of what to do or where to go.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Why shouldn't there be a choice? If they opt out, then they can't collect and should make other arrangements. It is their money and they should be able to use it as they see fit. There is no assurance that SS will be here when they are ready to retire. Anything can happen with the program. When it was established it wasn't meant to be a retirement fund as it was to be temporary.


So what happens if there is a big crash in the economy and all their money is gone? Do you vote they starve to death or live under a bridge? Remember if Republicans are in control they won't extend Medicaid benefits, in fact that will probably be gone or very limited as will as snap. 
If someone saves nothing at all, what will happen to them? You know we are not living in a perfect world. Everyone does not do as you think they should. There are many people now who do not have savings and if they use their ss to live on rather than investing, what would happen to them then. Can you walk by someone laying on the street and starving to death. It is easy to say, they should make other arrangements, but if you have no money how do you do that? Republicans always seem to have so many answers, but for those that don't follow your rules, I just wonder how much empathy you actually have for your fellow human beings.
Social security can be here and will be here if the republicans leave it alone. There are ways to strengthen it instead of destroying it, which is what the republicans have wanted to do since day1.

Give me one good reason why we should ever let republicans get their hands on social security and Medicare?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> We've had urgent care facilities here for decades. The original one has been absorbed and renamed by the local hospital system. The biggest problem with that is that no one is ever certain which conditions are going to be decided to be urgent care, and which will be sent over to the emergency room--thus incurring charges at both. Doesn't seem quite fair to me. The published guidelines are very vague. The other urgent care facility is affiliated with a hospital system in another city, bringing follow up and other problems. Perhaps that explains why my own physician, affiliated with the local hospital system but located at a satellite office in a nearby town, sent out letters with instructions to take EVERYTHING through his office via telephone for clearance and direction first. That might work well if I can remember to do it. Twenty-five years of habit sometimes takes over under stress.


All the urgent care centers and insurances here will not charge a copay for urgent care if you need to go to the hospital. It is not common to be double charged (urgent care and ER) if you need to be sent to the hospital, unless of course you wait a few days before going. You are also not charged another copay for an ER visit if you need to return within 24 hours (because if you needed to, for the same condition, they never should have discharged you).

Also all urgent care centers should follow a list of conditions that they will treat and won't. For instance, head injuries are a big no-no for urgent care but stitches are ok. Then there are the harder ones. Am urgent care center can see you for a stomach bug, but if they don't do iv's they may need to send you on if you need them.

To be honest, I have never heard of the double charging that you are talking about and we have used them rather frequently (we are the family that if something could go wrong it would), being sent to the ER a lot from there too. Perhaps that is something that needs to be looked into more in your area, especially if it's the same hospital system that sees them both places.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

NJG said:


> So what happens if there is a big crash in the economy and all their money is gone? Do you vote they starve to death or live under a bridge? Remember if Republicans are in control they won't extend Medicaid benefits, in fact that will probably be gone or very limited as will as snap.
> If someone saves nothing at all, what will happen to them? You know we are not living in a perfect world. Everyone does not do as you think they should. There are many people now who do not have savings and if they use their ss to live on rather than investing, what would happen to them then. Can you walk by someone laying on the street and starving to death. It is easy to say, they should make other arrangements, but if you have no money how do you do that? Republicans always seem to have so many answers, but for those that don't follow your rules, I just wonder how much empathy you actually have for your fellow human beings.
> Social security can be here and will be here if the republicans leave it alone. There are ways to strengthen it instead of destroying it, which is what the republicans have wanted to do since day1.
> 
> Give me one good reason why we should ever let republicans get their hands on social security and Medicare?


You know, I wonder if it is a baby boomer thing, this opposition to ss. The reason I wonder is that I don't recall one person who lived through the depression and remembered it (not those who were babies) speaking to me in opposition of ss. I wonder if the baby boomers came in, had the "easy life" compared to their parents through the depression and rationing during wars, and they just think that there will be a safety net. That it could never happen to them. Sure they see pictures of the depression and hear stories about children and elderly starving to death, but they have never had to look in their faces. It's all in the realm of stories. And this generation has had the safety net, put in place by their parents/grandparents, of unemployment, SSI, ssd, ssr, and the like so they have never actually had the real risk that they would never eat at all because they lost their job. I never thought about that before, but it truly makes me wonder. It's great to say that charities and churches would take over, but there still was not enough during the depression.

Could it be the safety net that the parents and grandparents put in place, to keep their family from suffering like they did, is actually what is enabling the Tea Partiers to further their agenda? Because those making the decisions now have not lived through it? That would be irony at its best.

I personally was a conservative before I went to work as a nurse and I completely changed when I worked in the ER. I saw a level of real world, Looking in the face full of tears, suffering I never had before. I wonder if insisting college students get real world volunteering in those places could change this trend of callousness.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> You know, I wonder if it is a baby boomer thing, this opposition to ss. The reason I wonder is that I don't recall one person who lived through the depression and remembered it (not those who were babies) speaking to me in opposition of ss. I wonder if the baby boomers came in, had the "easy life" compared to their parents through the depression and rationing during wars, and they just think that there will be a safety net.
> 
> I tend to think that it is an affluence/entitlement thing.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> You know, I wonder if it is a baby boomer thing, this opposition to ss. The reason I wonder is that I don't recall one person who lived through the depression and remembered it (not those who were babies) speaking to me in opposition of ss. I wonder if the baby boomers came in, had the "easy life" compared to their parents through the depression and rationing during wars, and they just think that there will be a safety net. That it could never happen to them. Sure they see pictures of the depression and hear stories about children and elderly starving to death, but they have never had to look in their faces. It's all in the realm of stories. And this generation has had the safety net, put in place by their parents/grandparents, of unemployment, SSI, ssd, ssr, and the like so they have never actually had the real risk that they would never eat at all because they lost their job. I never thought about that before, but it truly makes me wonder. It's great to say that charities and churches would take over, but there still was not enough during the depression.
> 
> Could it be the safety net that the parents and grandparents put in place, to keep their family from suffering like they did, is actually what is enabling the Tea Partiers to further their agenda? Because those making the decisions now have not lived through it? That would be irony at its best.
> 
> I personally was a conservative before I went to work as a nurse and I completely changed when I worked in the ER. I saw a level of real world, Looking in the face full of tears, suffering I never had before. I wonder if insisting college students get real world volunteering in those places could change this trend of callousness.


But does it tend to be republicans with this callousness or am I mistaken?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> But does it tend to be republicans with this callousness or am I mistaken?


Republican is a pretty broad brush.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

NJG said:


> But does it tend to be republicans with this callousness or am I mistaken?


It definately tends to be conservatives (not all, i do know some who aren't callous, but unfortunately they tend to cling to politicians who are more callous than they are). I wouldn't say republicans per se because there are many more groups that fall in the conservative group. Sadly, I when I was growing up I was around people who thought republicans were very liberal. So unfortunately I know about the more callous people who would be loath to be considered in with the republicans.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> Looks like Chris Christie's "bridgegate" won't be going away any time soon. I would think this would make a big difference on him running for president. If he ordered this, out of retaliation he certainly shouldn't be president and if it was his appointed friend that did it, then he certainly can not be trusted to appoint responsible people. I think he is a bully and would hate to see the big mouth as president.
> 
> The George Washington Bridge lane closures that led to paralyzing gridlock in Fort Lee this past September were ordered by someone outside the Port Authority and possibly for an improper motive, said the state lawmaker leading the investigation into whether the closings were politically motivated.
> 
> ...


I used to like him and thought that he would be a more centered conservative, but when I heard that the relief money that he received for rebuilding the shore, only a small portion was used for that purpose. People are still waiting for help. My question is why he spent 1.8 million dollars to run an ad to bring tourism back to Jersey. I understand that bringing tourism back would help economically, but what about these people who still haven't received help? Where did the money go? 
I still find that whole GW bridge thing is bizarre.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> It definately tends to be conservatives (not all, i do know some who aren't callous, but unfortunately they tend to cling to politicians who are more callous than they are). I wouldn't say republicans per se because there are many more groups that fall in the conservative group. Sadly, I when I was growing up I was around people who thought republicans were very liberal. So unfortunately I know about the more callous people who would be loath to be considered in with the republicans.


Same here L. At one time they were a very formidable party. But as we see now they are divided among themselves and the greed and craziness has gotten out of hand. I just can't get the war on the poor. Very sad.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Same here L. At one time they were a very formidable party. But as we see now they are divided among themselves and the greed and craziness has gotten out of hand. I just can't get the war on the poor. Very sad.


Honestly I think they thought the poor were an easy target. There is a strategy that many rulers have used, Hitler being one of the most famous (no, I am not saying conservatives are nazis, I'm just saying that Hitler was a prime and common example of this technique), they decide on a single group of people to demonize. It's been going on here for a while, starting with subversive comments a long time ago about the "lazy" poor who live off welfare. They corrupt the society by not only taking money from it but also by teaching the "young" to do the same. They are in a different class, and it must be avoided, sought out and destroyed. By uniting people in a common cause against the parasite of society, the scapegoat, they distract people from the actual reason for the societies downfall and then they are easily able to turn it into a control over people lest they be labeled as parasites.

If you are familiar with Hitler's tactics you know that he first started the comments again the Jewish people, that they "stole money" from rightful Germans. They taught their kids the same way and they were the ones holding all the money while the rest of Germany was in need. Then they emphasized the need to seek out and destroy their influence and monopoly (not yet at the concentration camp stage). They had to jump through hoops to do anything and were labeled and looked down on (much as the poor are here now). It united the German people by giving them a solid, touch and feel, reason their country was failing. Then they government worked in the control. People were afraid to speak out because they didn't want to be labeled as a problem. This is happening here when you have people who receive social security disability or retirement who are afraid to speak out against that behavior for fear people will know that they are collecting and label them a "leach".

So strategy wise is could have been a good tactic to gain control, however I don't think their strategists took one very important matter into consideration. They didn't realize just how many poor people there are and what dire straights they are in. The numbers alone could cause an over through of the government here, if pushed too far (like the French revolution). With the rich people only being a few who control massive monies they lose that simple part..... Numbers of people. Also with the economy tanked it put more people. Not only in the poor category, but also it dropped your "regular" poor people into even more desperation. Everybody knows (or should know) that a wounded animal is more dangerous because it is now at a disadvantage so it makes up for it in sheer, drastic violence.

Basically I think the people who have been strategizing this didn't realize, and I think some still don't, what a powder keg they are really sitting on.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Honestly I think they thought the poor were an easy target. There is a strategy that many rulers have used, Hitler being one of the most famous (no, I am not saying conservatives are nazis, I'm just saying that Hitler was a prime and common example of this technique), they decide on a single group of people to demonize. It's been going on here for a while, starting with subversive comments a long time ago about the "lazy" poor who live off welfare. They corrupt the society by not only taking money from it but also by teaching the "young" to do the same. They are in a different class, and it must be avoided, sought out and destroyed. By uniting people in a common cause against the parasite of society, the scapegoat, they distract people from the actual reason for the societies downfall and then they are easily able to turn it into a control over people lest they be labeled as parasites.
> snip
> 
> So strategy wise is could have been a good tactic to gain control, however I don't think their strategists took one very important matter into consideration. They didn't realize just how many poor people there are and what dire straights they are in. The numbers alone could cause an over through of the government here, if pushed too far (like the French revolution). With the rich people only being a few who control massive monies they lose that simple part..... Numbers of people. Also with the economy tanked it put more people. Not only in the poor category, but also it dropped your "regular" poor people into even more desperation. Everybody knows (or should know) that a wounded animal is more dangerous because it is now at a disadvantage so it makes up for it in sheer, drastic violence.
> ...


[I removed a bit of your post, LKholcomb, just to cut down on the repetitiveness.]

I do believe that this is a strategy that has been in place since the '60s, a national view of the "southern strategy". In the north and west people either are not are know that it is unacceptable to be bigots. The appeal there has to be broadened so that those who don't want to discriminate by race can join in due to class issues... the moochers, the 47%, the welfare queens... and FGS, even those using the SS benefits they worked for all of their lives. 
I agree that in being "inclusive" in their disdain the ultra-conservatives have gone too far. I hope that they have.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> I used to like him and thought that he would be a more centered conservative, but when I heard that the relief money that he received for rebuilding the shore, only a small portion was used for that purpose. People are still waiting for help. My question is why he spent 1.8 million dollars to run an ad to bring tourism back to Jersey. I understand that bringing tourism back would help economically, but what about these people who still haven't received help? Where did the money go?
> I still find that whole GW bridge thing is bizarre.


I agree and the running a special election for Cory Boocker for the senate was what really changed my opinion about him. He wasn't concerned about the cost, even though he is suppose to be a CONSERVATIVE. Guess you can be a conservative when it suits you. And now this bridge stuff. Weather he knew about it or not isn't the biggest problem. He has not been forth coming with answers about it and if he appoints people like this in New Jersey, what will he appoint in Washington and what will they be capable of doing? I don't think he can be trusted.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> It definately tends to be conservatives (not all, i do know some who aren't callous, but unfortunately they tend to cling to politicians who are more callous than they are). I wouldn't say republicans per se because there are many more groups that fall in the conservative group. Sadly, I when I was growing up I was around people who thought republicans were very liberal. So unfortunately I know about the more callous people who would be loath to be considered in with the republicans.


I agree, it is never all with one group, but some just tend to make themselves heard more I guess and the ones who differ, don't say anything.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> *If you are familiar with Hitler's tactics you know that he first started the comments again*(sic)* the Jewish people, that they "stole money" from rightful Germans.*
> 
> Isn't this what is going on now? Those filthy rich CEO's that are getting bonuses, and are not paying their employees a living wage. I see a lot of these comments on KP. Obama's plan is to spread the wealth around, to take from the rich and give to the poor.


Not really, if you read the rest of the paragraph or post you would see that it was only one part of a broader scheme. It is easier for the rich now to keep their money (through tax advantages) and they are not seen by the GOVERNMENT SYSTEM as "not having value". The rich folks have their lobbyists that make sure to keep their advantages. (whether tax or otherwise).

It is easy to pick one single part of the strategy and say "it's happening to x group", but it is just that, one single part. It is akin to saying that a child can read because they can identify the sounds to all the individual letters. One part of a plan is not the entire plan.

And the brilliance of the strategy Hitler used so effectively was that it could easily be turned around to any group, should you focus only on one part of the plan, not the bigger picture. As you have so nicely demonstrated (thank you, btw) a group can say that THEY are the intended focus (I'm not claiming you are rich, I don't know, I'm just using your comment as an example) and thus distract from the bigger plan.

Part of a strategy is the actual plan,but it is very, very important to also have a good counter or distraction (built in nicely to this plan) to keep people from putting together the actual plan.

And btw the majority of people I know don't want to take more than due from the "rich" people, they just want them to not get the tax breaks that your average working class person won't be allowed.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> [I removed a bit of your post, LKholcomb, just to cut down on the repetitiveness.]
> 
> I do believe that this is a strategy that has been in place since the '60s, a national view of the "southern strategy". In the north and west people either are not are know that it is unacceptable to be bigots. The appeal there has to be broadened so that those who don't want to discriminate by race can join in due to class issues... the moochers, the 47%, the welfare queens... and FGS, even those using the SS benefits they worked for all of their lives.
> I agree that in being "inclusive" in their disdain the ultra-conservatives have gone too far. I hope that they have.


I wonder if they have stretched out that bigotry to find out the most effective group to target. I think once upon a time targeting those of different races or non Christian religions (aka the KKK) was the most effective, but with the advancement of civil rights it no longer became so. But the one thing that has remained constant, until now, has been the downtrodden poor. They will always be in society and there is a fear, deep down, in everybody. Not a fear of them, but more of BECOMING them. But the fear of becoming them has been transferred to a hate of them, as it is much harder to "fight" an abstract thing. I don't know, I may be just getting to philosophical, lol.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> *If you are familiar with Hitler's tactics you know that he first started the comments again*(sic)* the Jewish people, that they "stole money" from rightful Germans.*
> 
> Isn't this what is going on now? Those filthy rich CEO's that are getting bonuses, and are not paying their employees a living wage. I see a lot of these comments on KP. Obama's plan is to spread the wealth around, to take from the rich and give to the poor.


Common complaint we have heard thousands of times from conservatives, "Take from the rich and give to the poor." I see that all the time on KP also. Just imagine how prosperous this country could be if everyone that was working was paid a living wage and there were more jobs created. If the CEO's took a little less in their bonus so they could increase the wages of their employees. That is not taking from the rich and giving to the poor. That is not asking to be given something for nothing. The key word there is employee, they are working and more people want to work. If it is a low paying job, but they are making a living wage, then they would not be collecting food stamps and would feel what it is like to support themselves and want to do better. That would mean the republicans would have to work with President Obama instead of against him so I don't see that happening. They continue to want to take more things away and think that will solve their problem. It won't. It will just increase the size of the low income Americans and republicans must remember, these people vote.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

I don't consider someone making 200,000 rich. I am talking about the corporations and millionaires who move money off shore and use lobbyists to purchase themselves a representative or senator to work for them. They have way more control over their money than someone making 200,000.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Lkholcomb -- since you brought up Hitler, I found this article:
> 
> Hitler Survivor Tells Americans: Buy More Guns!
> 
> ...


Gun registration, but not confiscation. That is only in your imagination or on your wish list so you could hate more that you already do.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Lkholcomb -- since you brought up Hitler, I found this article:
> 
> Hitler Survivor Tells Americans: Buy More Guns!
> 
> ...


I'm not quite sure why you needed to reference me. I'm not talking about guns. If it is because I mentioned Hitler, well that would be quite a stretch, kind of like me referencing you and posting an article about kangaroos because you have "Joey" in your name. Should you wish to reference me, please stick to the topic to which I spoke. I have no problem with you posting anything you wish, but please don't reference me as if that was the topic to which I was speaking. I have said this before, to someone on KP (can't remember who), but I refuse to muddy the waters by pulling in another topic removed from what I was speaking of.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> The Bashing of the rich is just a start. And BTW, The rich are not getting any tax breaks on their *personal* tax return that the average Joe does not get. Most tax breaks are gone at $150,000. Because of Obama care, their taxes have risen considerably, If you call a single person making $200,000 and married making $250,000 rich. Obama care has added marriage penalties.


There is always bashing of groups of people, like I said that is what makes this form of strategy so effective. The key to finding out who is being strategized against is watching for the next steps, or the preparation for the next steps. It is a very specialized gift, to be able to see the manipulation plan in progress. Most people can see it after, hindsight is 20/20 after all. I have laid out the steps that have been seen so far, not only by me but by other people who can put the pieces together and who have studied the manipulation and strategy techniques, so I will not say it again.

Time will tell.....


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I am only referring to * personal income tax*. You cannot equate corporations with the common people. According to the taxes in Obama care, they are rich. They will still pay taxes on any money they have over seas. Obama even has money invested in companies or corporations overseas.


That is just a cop out, cause the problem is not the people who make $200,000. It is the millionaires and the corporations who have the money to buy what they want, weather it be goods or people. They are the ones who have the control of this country.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> She was talking about tax advantages for people. No corporations were mentioned. The tax rules for corporations are totally different than personal (individual) tax rules, they can never be compared. But the owner of the cooperation still has to pay personal income taxes, that tax return can be compared to the common man, and they have NO tax advantages.


Sorry, but I don't see that at all. I don't see anywhere that she said she was talking about people only and not including corporations and millionaires and billionaires. Millionaires and billionaires certainly have different advantages at their disposal than one making 200,000.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> I don't consider someone making 200,000 rich. I am talking about the corporations and millionaires who move money off shore and use lobbyists to purchase themselves a representative or senator to work for them. They have way more control over their money than someone making 200,000.


In some places in the US, $200K is barely enough to live.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> You are so right, but Obama considers them rich enough to pay extra taxes in Obama care.


Joey, where do you refer to in the USA where $200K/year isn't enough to live on?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

NJG said:


> Sorry, but I don't see that at all. I don't see anywhere that she said she was talking about people only and not including corporations and millionaires and billionaires. Millionaires and billionaires certainly have different advantages at their disposal than one making 200,000.


That's because I never said it was just personal income tax. She was inferring something not stated.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> But you never said corporations.


No, but according to lovely law suits corporations are now "people" too.

And just because I didn't specify didn't mean I meant one or the other. I meant all rich folk, whether on personal taxes or business taxes.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> .
> 
> I responded to this statement of yours, where is the word corporations? you refer to "rich folks" meaning people.


Rich folk does not refer only to personal taxes. Corporations are owned by people, those people are responsible for their personal taxes and those from the business, no matter how taxes are filed differently in a business.

Let me clarify, I didn't exclude corporations and I was indeed referring to individuals and corporations (until there is a completely autonomous business completely devoid on any human input). That clear?

This shall be my last comment regarding what I meant as it is impossible to state it any clearer.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Sorry, but I don't see that at all. I don't see anywhere that she said she was talking about people only and not including corporations and millionaires and billionaires. Millionaires and billionaires certainly have different advantages at their disposal than one making 200,000.


It would be nice if someone who thought it was worth carrying on this conversation noted to Joey that corporations are owned by more than one person. The individuals who own part of those corporations pay federal income taxes as individuals.
Anyone who is spending $4K cash of the proceeds and declining to declare that $4K as income and then expense is cheating you and I, the taxpaying public.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Rich folk does not refer only to personal taxes. Corporations are owned by people, those people are responsible for their personal taxes and those from the business, no matter how taxes are filed differently in a business.
> 
> Let me clarify, I didn't not exclude corporations and I was indeed referring to individuals and corporations (until there is a completely autonomous business completely devoid on any human input). That clear?
> 
> This shall be my last comment regarding what I meant as it is impossible to state it any clearer.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: And you know, LK, if you spelled it out syllable by syllable Joey would do one of two things. Joey would either continue to to pretend not to understand your statements or, Joey would change to something that was almost but not quite the same discussion, OR Joey would change the subject entirely.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: And you know, LK, if you spelled it out syllable by syllable Joey would do one of two things. Joey would either continue to to pretend not to understand your statements or, Joey would change to something that was almost but not quite the same discussion, OR Joey would change the subject entirely.


I have noticed that trend. :thumbup:


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> In some places in the US, $200K is barely enough to live.


Where is that? And what lifestyle? I live in California, touted as one of the most expensive states to be in and know plenty of living on less than half of that.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

sumpleby said:


> Where is that? And what lifestyle? I live in California, touted as one of the most expensive states to be in and know plenty of living on less than half of that.


It's in many areas on both coasts for families who have several children and grocery bills of $1000. to $1300. per month and rent of $2400./mo, utilities run an average of $200. per month. 
$1600./month for child support from the first marriage. 
It just goes.


----------



## BJP (Oct 1, 2013)

If our political representatives would stop spending our money like it was water, maybe there would be some left for us!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I was just commenting on this post. I'm sure there are areas, like Washington DC, LA, and NYC where you could have difficulty with that amount if you have a family.


OK, but I'll disagree with the original statement; I don't buy it. Because the majority of households in even those areas bring in less than $200/K per year and do just fine.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> It would be nice if someone who thought it was worth carrying on this conversation noted to Joey that corporations are owned by more than one person. The individuals who own part of those corporations pay federal income taxes as individuals.
> Anyone who is spending $4K cash of the proceeds and declining to declare that $4K as income and then expense is cheating you and I, the taxpaying public.


Of course, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your statements about corps and taxes are inaccurate. Why commenting is worthy of your time on something you do not understand is comical.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> What I have noticed is that neither of you have any understanding of the tax system. Period.


 :thumbup: With that, I agree.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Joey, Jelun was referring to the example of writing off the $4,000 tractor against earned income as you outlined in your example.

Except, of course, Jelun didn't understand your example, turned and twisted your example to make a point, didn't make a point and has no clue how taxes work. 

She inferred that writing off the tractor is somehow illegal and cheating taxpayers.

All completely inaccurate as was her pronoun use.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: And you know, LK, if you spelled it out syllable by syllable Joey would do one of two things. Joey would either continue to to pretend not to understand your statements or, Joey would change to something that was almost but not quite the same discussion, OR Joey would change the subject entirely.


Every time there is any statement made about taxes, she always says she is only talking about individual taxes, not business. Well as I said yesterday, a person making $200,000, I do not consider as rich. The top 1%, individual or business are the ones I refer to when talking about the ones destroying this country as we know it. If she doesn't wish to discuss all of it, she can go away.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I missed this post yesterday. Your second paragraph makes no sense at all.
> 
> Most corporations are owned by many people, sometimes thousands of people. For each person that owns at least 1 share of stock owns a part of that corporation. The person or group that owns or controls more than 50% of the stock runs the corporation. The profits of the corporation is paid to each stockholder as dividends, The amount of the dividend is reported to the IRS. That person reports the amount on their tax return. It is taxed with the capital gains rules, which for the most part is at a lower tax rate than earned income. There is no way that a person can get $4000 from a corporation and the IRS not knowing.
> 
> ...


No one needs to MAKE the poor mad at the rich. The rich have been doing a good job of that all by themselves now for years. They don't need any help, but it will come back to bite them, because you can't walk on people for too long and not have them rise up, and you know it has already started.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> Every time there is any statement made about taxes, she always says she is only talking about individual taxes, not business. Well as I said yesterday, a person making $200,000, I do not consider as rich. The top 1%, individual or business are the ones I refer to when talking about the ones destroying this country as we know it. If she doesn't wish to discuss all of it, she can go away.


You might not consider a person making 200K as rich, but this administration certainly does. This administration considers them to be in the 1% category.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

All this crap you hear about all the taxes the rich pay--well there is another side to that story, although I am sure some of you won't read it and if you do will say it's not true. One thing you can't deny is that income inequality is growing more every day. I am not talking about the poor here as much as the middle class, so save the nasty remarks about "those people." I know how you feel about poor people, and I don't want to hear it again.

http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

How is a business rich, she asked. How about when their CEO makes $9,247 an hour.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> While a part of your article is true, it is also deceptive on what they leave out and inaccuracies.
> 
> the income of about $15,000, they will pay no more than 7.5% in social security and Medicare tax. Then what ever their state has in sales tax if their state has sales tax. I do not know if any state has the employee pay unemployment tax. It is paid by the employer. Then if that $15,000 income belongs to a married couple with 3 children under 17. They will have a federal tax refund of about $8000 from earned income tax credit and the additional child tax credit. Now tell me what is the net tax they are paying. NONE.
> 
> ...


And when The Donald files bankruptcy, several times, who pays for that? 
So when the person making $15,000 ends up paying no tax, that is terrible. But when Trump ends up paying no tax, yay for The Donald. Hypocrite.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Your chart says nothing about how rich the business is! The heading of the column is the CEO, a person.
> 
> Of course the CEO of a business will be rich, if the business is successful.
> 
> I wonder how much of the article you posted you do understand. Do you do your own taxes, or do you pay to have them done? or are you one that is living on just Social Security, so you do not need to file Federal taxes?


What difference does it make? Is any person worthy of being paid over $9,000 an hour and their employee being paid 7.25 an hour and the tax payers paying for that employees food?

I do my own taxes and I have other income besides social security, although I am not sure that is any of your business, and has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about. I also do some part time work for my son-in-law, a financial adviser, but again that has nothing to do with this. I am sure you want to portray me as a stupid idiot that knows nothing. I have said before that you look down your nose at other people and think you are better than most, which seems to be a republican trait for those on this site. My mother use to say some one with a long nose has spent too much time looking down it at other people. Well your nose must be down past your chin. Get over yourself.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Will you tell us how a business is destroying the country?
> 
> How is a business rich?


I'd like a list of all the poor businesses that hire folks and create jobs. :shock:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> How is a business rich, she asked. How about when their CEO makes $9,247 an hour.


A CEO is a PERSON, NOT a business. The business pays what the skills and market will bear to the employee. The employee pays personal income taxes. You want to make $9,000/hr - do the job the CEO does and stop your bitching and learn to control your envy.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Your chart says nothing about how rich the business is! The heading of the column is the CEO, a person.
> 
> Of course the CEO of a business will be rich, if the business is successful.
> 
> I wonder how much of the article you posted you do understand. Do you do your own taxes, or do you pay to have them done? or are you one that is living on just Social Security, so you do not need to file Federal taxes?


She is too stupid Joey to understand anything you explain to her - I suggest you don't waste any more of your time on her. You cannot teach someone unwilling to learn. She doesn't want to listen, learn or hear from anyone. She just wants to post her hate. If no one responds to her she'll go away or just talk to herself. Everyone can simply ignore her posts and all be at peace.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I guess I will never learn. I am a teacher, I will always be a teacher. I forget there are people who do not want to learn no matter how much the teacher tries.
> That is one reason we are wasting so much in education as a nation. Students will not learn unless they choose to, no matter how much money we throw at it.


You have wisdom Joey. You're correct, some just refuse to learn. Throwing more money isn't the answer either. I give educational seminars and have taught art skills classes as well (English as a second language too). Happy and wise are those who are willing to learn from those who share the skills to those without them. I admire teachers; you have the patience of Job as they say.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> She is too stupid Joey to understand anything you explain to her - I suggest you don't waste any more of your time on her. She doesn't want to listen, learn or hear from anyone. She just wants to post her hate. If no one responds to her she'll go away or just talk to herself. Everyone can simply ignore her posts and all be at peace.


There is no one more stupid than you KPG.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I guess I will never learn. I am a teacher, I will always be a teacher. I forget there are people who do not want to learn no matter how much the teacher tries.
> That is one reason we are wasting so much in education as a nation. Students will not learn unless they choose to, no matter how much money we throw at it.


So we are wasting money in education. Is that why republicans are always wanting to cut education. Lets take care of those that are willing to learn and for the rest of them, just push them aside, no extra help needed. That kid doesn't feel good today because he was hungry! Well we don't have the time or money for him. Besides this allows you to complain about "those people," and look down your long noses.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

NJG said:


> What difference does it make? Is any person worthy of being paid over $9,000 an hour and their employee being paid 7.25 an hour and the tax payers paying for that employees food?
> 
> I do my own taxes and I have other income besides social security, although I am not sure that is any of your business, and has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about. I also do some part time work for my son-in-law, a financial adviser, but again that has nothing to do with this. I am sure you want to portray me as a stupid idiot that knows nothing. I have said before that you look down your nose at other people and think you are better than most, which seems to be a republican trait for those on this site. My mother use to say some one with a long nose has spent too much time looking down it at other people. Well your nose must be down past your chin. Get over yourself.


I thought that the chart you posted that showed how much the CEO's made was meant to show how "rich" the company was because it needed to have the money to pay the salaries. Therefore if the CEO was making $9,000 an hour the business needs to be bringing in a profit over that. Am I correct in how you were trying to show your point NJG?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I missed this post yesterday. Your second paragraph makes no sense at all.
> 
> Most corporations are owned by many people, sometimes thousands of people. For each person that owns at least 1 share of stock owns a part of that corporation. The person or group that owns or controls more than 50% of the stock runs the corporation. The profits of the corporation is paid to each stockholder as dividends, The amount of the dividend is reported to the IRS. That person reports the amount on their tax return. It is taxed with the capital gains rules, which for the most part is at a lower tax rate than earned income. There is no way that a person can get $4000 from a corporation and the IRS not knowing.
> 
> ...


LOL, good one! It is one paragragh. Jaysus, man. Develop some communication skills and THEN come back and talk to us about the different ways to work out the tax status of capital expenditures.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> I thought that the chart you posted that showed how much the CEO's made was meant to show how "rich" the company was because it needed to have the money to pay the salaries. Therefore if the CEO was making $9,000 an hour the business needs to be bringing in a profit over that. Am I correct in how you were trying to show your point NJG?


Yes. They are obviously making enough profit to pay their CEO $9,247 an hour, which comes out to $369,880 a week compared to $290 for an employee on minimum wage so that tells a lot about how rich the company is. It tell us that the tax payers are compensating the McDonalds employees with food stamps. The republicans talk all the time about cutting food stamps, but no one will comment on this situation, except to complain about the employee that did not further their education and therefor it is their own fault.

I saw on tv today that the senate will bring the unemployment ins bill and the minimum wage bill etc to the floor of the senate and if they don't pass, bring them to the floor again and again. Let it be known to the American people who is voting against them. Republicans can talk all they want against these things, but they are forgetting something. There are more and more of us every day, more and more people who believe these things should pass. More and more people that were middle class and see their wages stagnant while the top 1% is making more and more money all the time. More and more people paying attention to the income inequality in this country. When some states brought raising the minimum wage to a vote it passed. The people are paying attention.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

NJG said:


> What difference does it make? Is any person worthy of being paid over $9,000 an hour and their employee being paid 7.25 an hour and the tax payers paying for that employees food?
> 
> I do my own taxes and I have other income besides social security, although I am not sure that is any of your business, and has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about. I also do some part time work for my son-in-law, a financial adviser, but again that has nothing to do with this. I am sure you want to portray me as a stupid idiot that knows nothing. I have said before that you look down your nose at other people and think you are better than most, which seems to be a republican trait for those on this site. My mother use to say some one with a long nose has spent too much time looking down it at other people. Well your nose must be down past your chin. Get over yourself.


No person is worthy of any income unless they WORK. CEO's have years of experience running a business, and most work such long hours they sacrifice their health and family to build something - corporate growth and image, technical success, stability for people (jobs). Someone earning 7.50/hr. has either elected to work a minimum wage job or has no one beating down his door to take a better job. That means the person is either lacking knowledge, initiative, or ability.

Corporate CEO's may be overpaid to you, but the wage surveys of all CEO's determines their salary range. Unlike politicians, they don't/can't vote themselves a raise. Many union officials are overpaid too. They don't do a day's work, but they spend their time talking to fellow members and playing cards in the break room. If wages were based on productivity, you'd see low wages for more people, and CEO's would probably earn more.

If you don't like wage disparity, blame the current administration under which the divide has gotten wider. The rich will always get richer because they invest their money wisely. The poor doesn't or thinks they can't.

You may do your own taxes, but you are a fool to challenge Joeysomma on taxes. She does that for a living if I remember correctly. You also seem to have an unusual hatred of people with wealth. That's unusual. Most people are envious and aspire to wealth, not jealous of it. Anyone can have some wealth if they are willing to sacrifice to build it. It is those who only live for the day and spend everything they make each day who most usually hate those with better planning skills.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I guess I will never learn. I am a teacher, I will always be a teacher.


*snicker snicker*


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> She is too stupid Joey to understand anything you explain to her - I suggest you don't waste any more of your time on her. You cannot teach someone unwilling to learn. She doesn't want to listen, learn or hear from anyone. She just wants to post her hate. If no one responds to her she'll go away or just talk to herself. Everyone can simply ignore her posts and all be at peace.


Yes, We all remember saying the same thing about you, but here you are.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> No person is worthy of any income unless they WORK. CEO's have years of experience running a business, and most work such long hours they sacrifice their health and family to build something - corporate growth and image, technical success, stability for people (jobs). Someone earning 7.50/hr. has either elected to work a minimum wage job or has no one beating down his door to take a better job. That means the person is either lacking knowledge, initiative, or ability.
> 
> Corporate CEO's may be overpaid to you, but the wage surveys of all CEO's determines their salary range. Unlike politicians, they don't/can't vote themselves a raise. Many union officials are overpaid too. They don't do a day's work, but they spend their time talking to fellow members and playing cards in the break room. If wages were based on productivity, you'd see low wages for more people, and CEO's would probably earn more.
> 
> ...


Isn't that what you all call "poor life choices"? Should people be rewarded for making stupid decisions about how to live their lives?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I guess I will never learn. I am a teacher, I will always be a teacher. I forget there are people who do not want to learn no matter how much the teacher tries.
> That is one reason we are wasting so much in education as a nation. Students will not learn unless they choose to, no matter how much money we throw at it.


If you are a teacher, then I feel sorry for the students you teach and for their futures.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> *snicker snicker*


Too bad you are not a learner. You need some help.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You have wisdom Joey. You're correct, some just refuse to learn. Throwing more money isn't the answer either. I give educational seminars and have taught art skills classes as well (English as a second language too). Happy and wise are those who are willing to learn from those who share the skills to those without them. I admire teachers; you have the patience of Job as they say.


Yes, fortune cookie wisdom, which is more than I can say for you.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> Too bad you are not a learner. You need some help.


Please......!!!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma wrote:
I guess I will never learn. I am a teacher, I will always be a teacher.



susanmos2000 said:


> *snicker snicker*


LOL, shouldn't that be a full on guffaw, susanmos2000?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> Too bad you are not a learner. You need some help.


Who needs help?

Knit crazy wrote:
No person is worthy of any income unless they WORK.

So those who are retired? Those who have been injured or their parent(s) killed in battle for us? Those children whose father's get killed at work or maimed at work? They get to go without support because YOU don't like that their parent isn't around?
And please, do NOT say "you are twisting what I said". 
You say what you mean all the time. You mean this.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> No person is worthy of any income unless they WORK. CEO's have years of experience running a business, and most work such long hours they sacrifice their health and family to build something - corporate growth and image, technical success, stability for people (jobs). Someone earning 7.50/hr. has either elected to work a minimum wage job or has no one beating down his door to take a better job. That means the person is either lacking knowledge, initiative, or ability.
> 
> Corporate CEO's may be overpaid to you, but the wage surveys of all CEO's determines their salary range. Unlike politicians, they don't/can't vote themselves a raise. Many union officials are overpaid too. They don't do a day's work, but they spend their time talking to fellow members and playing cards in the break room. If wages were based on productivity, you'd see low wages for more people, and CEO's would probably earn more.
> 
> ...


OMG, you are living in a dream world. I laugh when I read what you wrote. You said exactly what I said you would. Blame the poor people for lack of education. That is your common line of attack. I did not challenge Joey to anything. I put some information out there and she can do whatever she wants with it. I could care less. 
I do not have a hatred for people who have wealth. If they have earned it and use it wisely, more power to them. People who use their wealth to try to convince young people to not purchase insurance in order to try to make our president and our country fail, yes I have an opinion about that. People who use their wealth to do harm to other people, yes I have an opinion about that. People who look down their nose at those less fortunate, I have an opinion about that. You appear to fit in that last group with Joey and KPG, so just remember There but for the grace of God Go I. Maybe you should all try being a good Christian for a change.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> No person is worthy of any income unless they WORK. CEO's have years of experience running a business, and most work such long hours they sacrifice their health and family to build something - corporate growth and image, technical success, stability for people (jobs). Someone earning 7.50/hr. has either elected to work a minimum wage job or has no one beating down his door to take a better job. That means the person is either lacking knowledge, initiative, or ability.
> 
> Corporate CEO's may be overpaid to you, but the wage surveys of all CEO's determines their salary range. Unlike politicians, they don't/can't vote themselves a raise. Many union officials are overpaid too. They don't do a day's work, but they spend their time talking to fellow members and playing cards in the break room. If wages were based on productivity, you'd see low wages for more people, and CEO's would probably earn more.
> 
> ...


OMG, you are living in a dream world. I laugh when I read what you wrote. You said exactly what I said you would. Blame the poor people for lack of education. That is your common line of attack. I did not challenge Joey to anything. I put some information out there and she can do whatever she wants with it. I could care less. 
I do not have a hatred for people who have wealth. If they have earned it and use it wisely, more power to them. People who use their wealth to try to convince young people to not purchase insurance in order to try to make our president and our country fail, yes I have an opinion about that. People who use their wealth to do harm to other people, yes I have an opinion about that. People who look down their nose at those less fortunate, I have an opinion about that. You appear to fit in that last group with Joey and KPG, so just remember There but for the grace of God Go I. Maybe you should all try being a good Christian for a change.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> If you are a teacher, then I feel sorry for the students you teach and for their futures.


I wouldn't sweat it, Patty--I'm sure the curriculum includes a fair number of doggy num-nums and the "students" are more than satisfied.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Knit Crazy, said: . If wages were based on productivity, you'd see low wages for more people, and CEO's would probably earn more. 

Is this what you really think of the working class is this country? The majority of these people could work you under the table. My Mother was a farm wife and I know she would have put you to shame and left you in the dust.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Isn't that what you all call "poor life choices"? Should people be rewarded for making stupid decisions about how to live their lives?


Your words, not mine. Realistically, however, it seems to work that way - the grasshopper vs. the ant. If you don't work hard, you can't expect success.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

NJG said:


> Knit Crazy, said: . If wages were based on productivity, you'd see low wages for more people, and CEO's would probably earn more.
> 
> Is this what you really think of the working class is this country? The majority of these people could work you under the table. My Mother was a farm wife and I know she would have put you to shame and left you in the dust.


Since you don't know me, that is an assumption you can't make. Willingness to work hard is a virtue. Working smart and preparing for life is the foundation of success.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

NJG said:


> OMG, you are living in a dream world. I laugh when I read what you wrote. You said exactly what I said you would. Blame the poor people for lack of education. That is your common line of attack. I did not challenge Joey to anything. I put some information out there and she can do whatever she wants with it. I could care less.
> I do not have a hatred for people who have wealth. If they have earned it and use it wisely, more power to them. People who use their wealth to try to convince young people to not purchase insurance in order to try to make our president and our country fail, yes I have an opinion about that. People who use their wealth to do harm to others people, yes I have an opinion about that. People who look down their nose at those less fortunate, I have an opinion about that. You appear to fit in that last group with Joey and KPG, so just remember There but for the grace of God Go I. Maybe you should all try being a good Christian for a change.


The person harming the middle class and poor lives in the White House. It doesn't take wealth to convince the young that Obamacare is a raw deal for everyone. They have enough brains to understand they are being used. I don't know who you think is looking down their nose at the poor. Not accepting responsibility for another person's lifestyle isn't judgmental. It's self preservation. Charity begins at home. Plan your life. Live your plan as hard as you can. Love your family. Love God and show kindness where you can. But, don't sacrifice your life or future for people without a life plan for themselves unless charity is more important to you than your responsibilities. Anything else is reckless and foolish and doomed to failure. The poor will always be with us because some people don't plan and default into poverty.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> The person harming the middle class and poor lives in the White House. It doesn't take wealth to convince the young that Obamacare is a raw deal for everyone. They have enough brains to understand they are being used. I don't know who you think is looking down their nose at the poor. Not accepting responsibility for another person's lifestyle isn't judgmental. It's self preservation. Charity begins at home. Plan your life. Live your plan as hard as you can. Love your family. Love God and show kindness where you can. But, don't sacrifice your life or future for people without a life plan for themselves unless charity is more important to you than your responsibilities. Anything else is reckless and foolish and doomed to failure. The poor will always be with us because some people don't plan and default into poverty.


Beautiful words, KC. Now explain to me again why young people should shouldn't plan wisely for their future by purchasing medical insurance now, so they have some financial protection in the event of unexpected illness or injury?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Here is a little tip for you, KC.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> The person harming the middle class and poor lives in the White House. It doesn't take wealth to convince the young that Obamacare is a raw deal for everyone. They have enough brains to understand they are being used. I don't know who you think is looking down their nose at the poor. Not accepting responsibility for another person's lifestyle isn't judgmental. It's self preservation. Charity begins at home. Plan your life. Live your plan as hard as you can. Love your family. Love God and show kindness where you can. But, don't sacrifice your life or future for people without a life plan for themselves unless charity is more important to you than your responsibilities. Anything else is reckless and foolish and doomed to failure. The poor will always be with us because some people don't plan and default into poverty.


Spoken like a true selfish @#%*!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Spoken like a true selfish @#%*!


So true, Patty. These characters are in one breath urging young people to spurn health insurance on the grounds that those healthy young bodies don't need regular medical care, in the next saying that those who don't plan wisely for their future deserve exactly what they get.

Unbelievable.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> an example: My son has renters in his house. She is about 34 and has been working 2 jobs. He is 37 and seems very healthy. When I needed something moved in the house , he had no trouble doing it in a short amount of time. He does not work and is trying to get disability. It has been more than a week since the last snowfall, and the sidewalk has not been shoveled. I gave 2 verbal warnings, and finally had to write to tell them if the city shovels the sidewalk they will pay. She said she would do it after the finishes work the next day. He is the kind of person I will not feel sorry for. He is nothing but a sponge. He should get nothing from the taxpayer. If he wants to eat, he needs to work, even if it is minimum wage.


"Seems" healthy is the key word here. How can you possibly judge without knowing the man's full medical history? People with serious conditions such as heart failure often get blasted for using handicapped parking because they have two arms, two legs, and "seem" healthy enough.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Actually the best buy for those 30 and under is to get catastrophic insurance, which is allowed under Obamacare. Then start a Health Saving Account. The maximum out of pocket expense is about $6000. The deductible has been about $2000. This is one of the proposals the Republicans have put forward but for everyone and to expand the Health Savings Accounts so more than $2000 can be saved every year,


Catastrophic health insurance might be a reasonable choice for a young person in good health--but many conservatives are urging them not to purchase anything and instead pay the fine. Strange words, very strange indeed, from folks who swear by careful planning for one's future.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> The person harming the middle class and poor lives in the White House. It doesn't take wealth to convince the young that Obamacare is a raw deal for everyone. They have enough brains to understand they are being used. I don't know who you think is looking down their nose at the poor. Not accepting responsibility for another person's lifestyle isn't judgmental. It's self preservation. Charity begins at home. Plan your life. Live your plan as hard as you can. Love your family. Love God and show kindness where you can. But, don't sacrifice your life or future for people without a life plan for themselves unless charity is more important to you than your responsibilities. Anything else is reckless and foolish and doomed to failure. The poor will always be with us because some people don't plan and default into poverty.


It is judgmental, because you don't know anything about how these people got to where they are. You judge them and assume it is poor choices on their part. Everything you said was judgmental. You are looking down your nose at them, and it is proven by everything you said. Not accepting responsibility for another person's lifestyle isn't judgmental, but judging their choices is very judgmental. I would much rather spend an afternoon with one of the people you are judging than spend it with someone like you. Just because someone is poor, doesn't mean they made poor choices. You are judging them and saying that. 
If it doesn't take wealth to convince the young that the ACA is a raw deal, then why did republicans spend millions to try to do that. 
Judge the poor all you want, that is who you are, but are you also judging the people of the middle class that lost their jobs because of Bush? Is it their fault that the economy tanked and they lost their job and haven't been able to find another. Are you judging those people who use to be in the middle class and are now closer to the poor? Do you even realize that that is happening? Remember it is the 1% against the other 99%. Weather you are part of the 1% or not doesn't matter, it is the attitude you have and how judgmental you are.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> "Seems" healthy is the key word here. How can you possibly judge without knowing the man's full medical history? People with serious conditions such as heart failure often get blasted for using handicapped parking because they have two arms, two legs, and "seem" healthy enough.


But judging them without knowing the whole story is what Joey KPG and knit crazy do.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Catastrophic health insurance might be a reasonable choice for a young person in good health--but many conservatives are urging them not to purchase anything and instead pay the fine. Strange words, very strange indeed, from folks who swear by careful planning for one's future.


Yes, strange words coming from people that certainly have health insurance but at the same time, trying to tell others what to do so that their choice will hurt the president and the ACA. Not very caring, is it? Christians? I don't think so.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> Since you don't know me, that is an assumption you can't make. Willingness to work hard is a virtue. Working smart and preparing for life is the foundation of success.


Since you don't know the people you are judging, there are a lot of assumptions you can't make, but you do it anyway. Why is that. Strange that you believe you can do what you tell me I can't do. Doesn't work that way. You dish it out, you get it back.

Working smart and preparing for life is the foundation of success. Does that include the purchase of health insurance by young healthy people so they are prepared for the future or should they not take your advice and instead take advice from the Koch Brothers that they don't need health insurance. Which way should it be?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

NJG said:


> Knit Crazy, said: . If wages were based on productivity, you'd see low wages for more people, and CEO's would probably earn more.
> 
> Is this what you really think of the working class is this country? The majority of these people could work you under the table. My Mother was a farm wife and I know she would have put you to shame and left you in the dust.


I laugh, because there have been several CEO's who have crashed or made worse a hospital in our area and still get paid a lot. In one case a hospital in the system was shut down without checking into ramifications. They thought that all the equipment (a lot new) would just be transferred to another hospital. The problem was that according to contracts and such they couldn't just transfer the equipment to another hospital. They also didn't tell their employees they were closing. The employees found out on the news! My mil was working at that hospital and had been for over 30 years. They also just assumed that the employees would transfer to the other hospital in the system. But with the way they treated them over the announcing of the closing the majority did not transfer. So the other understaffed hospital got busier without additional staff!

Yeah that's what I call an effective CEO work a lot of money (sarcasm intended)


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> "Seems" healthy is the key word here. How can you possibly judge without knowing the man's full medical history? People with serious conditions such as heart failure often get blasted for using handicapped parking because they have two arms, two legs, and "seem" healthy enough.


Thank you! I am one of those with a "silent" illness and have gotten so many dirty looks and unbelieving looks because I had a handicapped permit. People judge so much without any real knowledge.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> I laugh, because there have been several CEO's who have crashed or made worse a hospital in our area and still get paid a lot. In one case a hospital in the system was shut down without checking into ramifications. They thought that all the equipment (a lot new) would just be transferred to another hospital. The problem was that according to contracts and such they couldn't just transfer the equipment to another hospital. They also didn't tell their employees they were closing. The employees found out on the news! My mil was working at that hospital and had been for over 30 years. They also just assumed that the employees would transfer to the other hospital in the system. But with the way they treated them over the announcing of the closing the majority did not transfer. So the other understaffed hospital got busier without additional staff!
> 
> Yeah that's what I call an effective CEO work a lot of money (sarcasm intended)


Look at all of the losses and scandals in privated entities from which CEOs and Board members end up emerging with wonderful severance and compensation pkgs. (bribes to get the heck outta Dodge and for BODs to keep their mouths shut) These people are not paid for success, they are paid for being. Was that CEO [and his team] paid minimum wage for the mess made at JC Penney or at Sears/KMart? 
Thanks, Ladies, for "fighting the good fight", I am afraid that some walls are so thick the barriers will never be breached. 
Luckily those people have no hope of having much influence for the next decades for one reason or another.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

NJG said:


> Yes, strange words coming from people that certainly have health insurance but at the same time, trying to tell others what to do so that their choice will hurt the president and the ACA. Not very caring, is it? Christians? I don't think so.


It's even stranger than that, NJG. I know from previous posts that Joey's son is a laborer who has struggled at times to find full employment and, we learn now, still depends on his mother to keep a roof over his head. Given the circumstances it seems doubtful that he has employer-sponsored health insurance--given his mother's views on the ACA it seems even more doubtful that there are any easy answers for him.

Is Son one of those so-called "moochers" the conservatives decry who now qualifies for free insurance under expanded Medicare? Is he a twenty-something who now, under the auspices of the ACA, can get coverage under his mother's policy? If not, is Mama Joey holding to the standard GOP line and urging him NOT to buy at least catastrophic insurance and instead pay the fine? What if he injures himself on the job--is she going to pay his medical bills out of her own pocket or simply let the American taxpayer handle it?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Thank you! I am one of those with a "silent" illness and have gotten so many dirty looks and unbelieving looks because I had a handicapped permit. People judge so much without any real knowledge.


The ignorant do indeed judge--and, worse still, are prepared to strip disabled folks of their government benefits on the grounds that they "seem" healthy. Joey doesn't have a clue as to what her tenant's true medical history is--yet she's prepared to deny him disability, Medicare, food stamps, and whatever other benefits he qualifies for.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Thank you! I am one of those with a "silent" illness and have gotten so many dirty looks and unbelieving looks because I had a handicapped permit. People judge so much without any real knowledge.


Alas it's all too common, Lkholcomb. My college roommate lost her leg above the knee to bone cancer and wore a prosthesis--even though she could barely walk and had a handicapped placard on her car she was not spared the withering glances and rude comments of the ignorant when she pulled into a handicapped spot.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

I hear a lot of ignorance and frustration coming from you. I feel sorry for you. But, I would never support your ignorance or lifestyles. The CEO you should blame is Obama.  He has crashed the entire healthcare system. His government can't build a website that is functional. Hospitals are closing or now unavailable to very sick people. He replaced a flawed , but functioning healthcare system with Medicaid or Medicaid-lite insurance for many with that better insurance, and the Medicaid-lite costs more to the enrollee. Medicaid for the masses of new enrolled is a bill everyone will pay. 6 million lost insurance and 2 million now have it. That is not a success. It will only get worse. Blame Obama for destroying an industry. 

Now a new housing bubble is looming. No one has corrected the original housing issue because Obama didn't understand that Dodd-Frank caused it. Unlike. Bush , who tried to negate Dodd-Frank, but had a Democratic controlled Congress at the time, Obama had total control of Congress in 2009 and 2010, and as usual the numb nuts in Congress did the wrong things. So, we're still in the recession taking some into poverty. Until we get some adults in control of the country , it will just get worse.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> I hear a lot of ignorance and frustration coming from you. I feel sorry for you. But, I would never support your ignorance or lifestyles. The CEO you should blame is Obama. He has crashed the entire healthcare system. His government can't build a website that is functional. Hospitals are closing or now unavailable to very sick people. He replaced a flawed , but functioning healthcare system with Medicaid or Medicaid-lite insurance for many with that better insurance, and the Medicaid-lite costs more to the enrollee. Medicaid for the masses of new enrolled is a bill everyone will pay. 6 million lost insurance and 2 million now have it. That is not a success. It will only get worse. Blame Obama for destroying an industry.
> 
> Now a new housing bubble is looming. No one has corrected the original housing issue because Obama didn't understand that Dodd-Frank caused it. Unlike. Bush , who tried to negate Dodd-Frank, but had a Democratic controlled Congress at the time, Obama had total control of Congress in 2009 and 2010, and as usual the numb nuts in Congress did the wrong things. So, we're still in the recession taking some into poverty. Until we get some adults in control of the country , it will just get worse.


A rather obvious attempt to change the subject, KC. Simply pitiful!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> I hear a lot of ignorance and frustration coming from you. I feel sorry for you. But, I would never support your ignorance or lifestyles. The CEO you should blame is Obama. He has crashed the entire healthcare system. His government can't build a website that is functional. Hospitals are closing or now unavailable to very sick people. He replaced a flawed , but functioning healthcare system with Medicaid or Medicaid-lite insurance for many with that better insurance, and the Medicaid-lite costs more to the enrollee. Medicaid for the masses of new enrolled is a bill everyone will pay. 6 million lost insurance and 2 million now have it. That is not a success. It will only get worse. Blame Obama for destroying an industry.
> 
> Now a new housing bubble is looming. No one has corrected the original housing issue because Obama didn't understand that Dodd-Frank caused it. Unlike. Bush , who tried to negate Dodd-Frank, but had a Democratic controlled Congress at the time, Obama had total control of Congress in 2009 and 2010, and as usual the numb nuts in Congress did the wrong things. So, we're still in the recession taking some into poverty. Until we get some adults in control of the country , it will just get worse.


Dahlin'? I just know that you are good hearted and would never lie intentionally. Please, check your facts as it would be VERY hard for Dodd Frank to cause the "original housing issue". While you are at it look into the coverage in Congress for '09 and 2010 as well as the separation of powers.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> A rather obvious attempt to change the subject, KC. Simply pitiful!


Your ignorance of what causes a recession and poverty is what is pitiful. Those who fail to learn are doomed to repeat their problems.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> Your ignorance of what causes a recession and poverty is what is pitiful. Those who fail to learn are doomed to repeat their problems.


So very true, KC--then why not encourage people to plan wisely for their futures by purchasing, at the very least, catastrophic health insurance? Examples of Americans who have been wiped out financially by unexpected health issues abound--even a healthy young person can fall victim to appendicitis or fall off a ladder.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> The ignorant do indeed judge--and, worse still, are prepared to strip disabled folks of their government benefits on the grounds that they "seem" healthy. Joey doesn't have a clue as to what her tenant's true medical history is--yet she's prepared to deny him disability, Medicare, food stamps, and whatever other benefits he qualifies for.


This is a really poor argument Susan. Joey has no ability to deny benefits to anyone. She isn't the government who gives benefits to anyone breathing. She isn't responsible for this man's poor health, if it is poor. Moreover, she is not a charitable organization. But, since Joey is a very charitable lady, she probably would help this couple if there was any evidence they were trying to help themselves. Joey's role as a landlord is as a businesswoman. She isn't a counselor, a social worker, or a nursemaid.

The real issue is that Joey has two tenants, one male and one female. If the female has accepted the male's inability or unwillingness to take care of the rental property, she must take care of it. If the female can't handle that, she needs different housing. It isn't the landlord's job to babysit those unable to handle the job, and landlords can get fined by the government if sidewalks are not shoveled.

Obviously those so sorry for Joey's tenants have never been a landlord. I am not, but I have family and friends who are, and it seems nothing but a hassle. The basic problem is that almost nobody takes care of another person's property like they would their own. Some people are just slobs. Some just don't know how to take care of property.

I do have a friend who has a number of rentals. He told me that the recession was good for him. When almost anyone could get a loan to buy a house, the renters became buyers. What was left as a renter pool to choose from was the people who had no idea about taking care of property, and they didn't. When the former renters, now owners, lost their homes in the recession, he had a much higher quality renter pool to choose from.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> It's even stranger than that, NJG. I know from previous posts that Joey's son is a laborer who has struggled at times to find full employment and, *we learn now, still depends on his mother to keep a roof over his head. *Given the circumstances it seems doubtful that he has employer-sponsored health insurance--given his mother's views on the ACA it seems even more doubtful that there are any easy answers for him.
> 
> Is Son one of those so-called "moochers" the conservatives decry who now qualifies for free insurance under expanded Medicare? Is he a twenty-something who now, under the auspices of the ACA, can get coverage under his mother's policy? If not, is Mama Joey holding to the standard GOP line and urging him NOT to buy at least catastrophic insurance and instead pay the fine? What if he injures himself on the job--is she going to pay his medical bills out of her own pocket or simply let the American taxpayer handle it?


You are a complete ignoramus. Joey's son OWNS the home. Cannot you read? Joey said, her son's tenants in *HIS* home.

Since you like to judge and criticize moochers, what do you have to say to all those children of your Liberal moocher buddies?

PoorPurl and Jelun2 have admitted their children live under their roofs. What are you going to say to them?

MaidInBedlam lives with her mother presumably under her mother's roof. What do you have to say to her?

Bratty Patty didn't seem to mind her own daughter collected SNAP benefits because the Mom apparently doesn't believe charity begins at home. I cannot wait to hear you chastise BrattyPatty for not supporting her own daughter.

You have no compassion for anyone, just a big mouth willing to criticize anyone you do not like.

Now that you've posted your hate speech, apologize to Joeysomma because her son puts his life on the line to protect your sorry behind. Stop mooching off his and any service member's sacrifice without gratitude from your sick self as gratitude is *all* any uniformed service member expects of you.

Go get a job yourself while you are at it to set a good example for your own son.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> This is a really poor argument Susan. Joey has no ability to deny benefits to anyone. She isn't the government who gives benefits to anyone breathing. She isn't responsible for this man's poor health, if it is poor. Moreover, she is not a charitable organization. But, since Joey is a very charitable lady, she probably would help this couple if there was any evidence they were trying to help themselves. Joey's role as a landlord is as a businesswoman. She isn't a counselor, a social worker, or a nursemaid.
> 
> The real issue is that Joey has two tenants, one male and one female. If the female has accepted the male's inability or unwillingness to take care of the rental property, she must take care of it.


No, that's not the real issue, or at least not the issue I'm attempting to highlight. Joey herself has made the judgement that this man seems fit and therefore should be denied whatever benefits the government may be willing to extend to him--just words for now, as you pointed out. But as voters we have the power to put into office those elected officials who will carry out our wishes.

I find it very strange that conservatives believe they have the right to judge others' life circumstances without knowing the how's and why's and, worse still, would take drastic action against disadvantaged folks if they had the power to do so. It is a frightening irresponsible way to behave, and insulting to those who have very real but invisible disabilities that they choose not to make public.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You are a complete ignoramus. Joey's son OWNS the home. Cannot you read? Joey said, her son's tenants in *HIS* home.
> 
> Since you like to judge and criticize moochers, what do you have to say to all those children of your Liberal moocher buddies?
> 
> ...


You are the ignoramus, if Joey's son owns the home, Joey has not authority to send any communications out to the tenants. 
LOL, and in addition to being totally ignorant you once again talk out of the many sides of your octagonal mouth. You expect comment on people who support their children in need and then expect comment on people who you decide haven't supported their children enough...all on issues that, frankly, are none of your business.
BTW, isn't admitted an odd usage?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You are a complete ignoramus. Joey's son OWNS the home. Cannot you read? Joey said, her son's tenants in *HIS* home.


Yes, I did read that--but apparently Joey is acting landlady as she's responsible for issuing edicts to the aforementioned tenants. What the arrangement is between Joey and her son I don't know--but it's obvious Mom plays a key role in maintaining her son's standard of living.

I have no problem whatsoever with parents assisting their grown children, and vice versa. But it's outrageous for conservatives who benefit from such an arrangement to label others doing the same thing as lazy, unmotivated, unscrupulous, etc.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Obama care is not a good buy for a healthy young person. Actually the best buy for those 30 and under is to get catastrophic insurance, which is allowed under ACA. Then start a Health Saving Account. The maximum out of pocket expense is about $6000. The deductible has been about $2000. This is one of the proposals the Republicans have put forward but for everyone and to expand the Health Savings Accounts so more than $2000 can be saved every year. These amounts are for a single person.


One bad accident or serious illness would wipe that "savings account" out in a minute. Leaving that person dangling in the wind.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

It seems that the "boss" has designated forms of ignorance as the word of the day. 

It was a great prompt, time to go back into ignore mode.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You are the ignoramus, if Joey's son owns the home, Joey has not authority to send any communications out to the tenants.
> LOL, and in addition to being totally ignorant you once again talk out of the many sides of your octagonal mouth. You expect comment on people who support their children in need and then expect comment on people who you decide haven't supported their children enough...all on issues that, frankly, are none of your business.


Ever hear of a POA? How do you know Joey doesn't have the authority to act on behalf of her son?

You lie through your teeth and expect no one to challenge you on your lies.

I'm still waiting for you to show me the post of mine where I told you I have total recall and lightening speed and re-read the posts.

You cannot even understand what you read in the present.

I'm not the one to slam parents for helping their children in need, your Liberal bud, Susanmos, did.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Yes, I did read that--but apparently Joey is acting landlady as she's responsible for issuing edicts to the aforementioned tenants. What the arrangement is between Joey and her son I don't know--but it's obvious Mom plays a key role in maintaining her son's standard of living.


There you go - you dressed down Joey's son for being a moocher and yet ignore and refuse to do the same to your mooching Lib buds. Joey's son ISNT a moocher, your Lib buds' kids ARE according to your beliefs.

To use NJG's favorite words: *YOU* are a *hypocrite.*

Of course, you now are trying to make another point to avoid your own stupidity and obvious mistakes. Typical Lib.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> I have no problem whatsoever with parents assisting their grown children, and vice versa. But it's outrageous for conservatives who benefit from such an arrangement to label others doing the same thing as lazy, unmotivated, unscrupulous, etc.


Name one conservative on this threads who has.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> There you go - you dressed down Joey's son for being a moocher and yet ignore and refuse to do the same to your mooching Lib buds. Joey's son ISNT a moocher, your Lib buds' kids ARE according to your beliefs.
> 
> To use NJG's favorite words: *YOU* are a hypocrite.
> 
> Of course, you now are trying to make another point to avoid your own stupidity and obvious mistakes. Typical Lib.


Sorry, toots--I thought the act of putting the word _moocher_ in quotes would make it clear even to you that I was prepared to reserve judgement in the case of Joey's son. It appears that I overestimated your intelligence. How careless of me.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> It seems that the "boss" has designated forms of ignorance as the word of the day.
> 
> It was a great prompt, time to go back into ignore mode.


Spend your time reading how Dodd-Frank began and is uniquely responsible for the housing market crash AND the Wall St crisis and the recession that followed that Obama feeds with his policies today.

You never go into ignore mode, you'll keep responding as you always do.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Sorry, toots--I thought the act of putting the word _moocher_ in quotes would make it clear even to you that I was prepared to reserve judgement in the case of Joey's son. It appears that I overestimated your intelligence. How careless of me.


Poor try - you accused Joey son's of being a moocher and you were *wrong*.

Yet, according to your beliefs, Jelun, BrattyPatty, PoorPurl and MIB all are or have moochers in their families and you just insulted every one of them.

Good for you. I hope every one of them ignores you for insulting them which you were great at. Of course, they'll go easy on you since you are one of them.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Poor try - you accused Joey son's of being a moocher and you were *wrong*.
> 
> Yet, according to your beliefs, Jelun, BrattyPatty, PoorPurl and MIB all are or have moochers in their families and you just insulted every one of them.
> 
> Good for you.


Nice try at twisting my words, KPG. We've had verbal spats before, and you inevitably slink away with your tail plastered between your legs. Are you sure you want to continue this?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Ever hear of a POA? How do you know Joey doesn't have the authority to act on behalf of her son?
> 
> You lie through your teeth and expect no one to challenge you on your lies.
> 
> ...


Last response, due to your hypocrisy... one post you admonish me because I don't give credit for a possible legality and in the next post you chastise another for recognizing that one may be in place.

Did you mean "lightning speed"? And I said nothing about re-reading posts. 
Do all of us a favor and go back on your meds, please. 
YOU are the one who enjoys reviewing the archives, have at it now that you know you should REREAD(no need for a hyphen, dummy) what I said about your statement.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Nice try at twisting my words, KPG. We've had verbal spats before, and you inevitably slink away with your tail plastered between your legs. Are you sure you want to continue this?


HAHAHAA, I love that visual.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> I laugh, because there have been several CEO's who have crashed or made worse a hospital in our area and still get paid a lot. In one case a hospital in the system was shut down without checking into ramifications. They thought that all the equipment (a lot new) would just be transferred to another hospital. The problem was that according to contracts and such they couldn't just transfer the equipment to another hospital. They also didn't tell their employees they were closing. The employees found out on the news! My mil was working at that hospital and had been for over 30 years. They also just assumed that the employees would transfer to the other hospital in the system. But with the way they treated them over the announcing of the closing the majority did not transfer. So the other understaffed hospital got busier without additional staff!
> 
> Yeah that's what I call an effective CEO work a lot of money (sarcasm intended)


That sounds a lot like what happened in a neighboring city last year. I was reasonably certain at the time that it wasn't an isolated incident.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> I hear a lot of ignorance and frustration coming from you. I feel sorry for you. But, I would never support your ignorance or lifestyles. The CEO you should blame is Obama. He has crashed the entire healthcare system. His government can't build a website that is functional. Hospitals are closing or now unavailable to very sick people. He replaced a flawed , but functioning healthcare system with Medicaid or Medicaid-lite insurance for many with that better insurance, and the Medicaid-lite costs more to the enrollee. Medicaid for the masses of new enrolled is a bill everyone will pay. 6 million lost insurance and 2 million now have it. That is not a success. It will only get worse. Blame Obama for destroying an industry.
> 
> Now a new housing bubble is looming. No one has corrected the original housing issue because Obama didn't understand that Dodd-Frank caused it. Unlike. Bush , who tried to negate Dodd-Frank, but had a Democratic controlled Congress at the time, Obama had total control of Congress in 2009 and 2010, and as usual the numb nuts in Congress did the wrong things. So, we're still in the recession taking some into poverty. Until we get some adults in control of the country , it will just get worse.


My brain is totally boggled. What are your sources for the comments you make?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Nice try at twisting my words, KPG. We've had verbal spats before, and you inevitably slink away with your tail plastered between your legs. Are you sure you want to continue this?


Yep - because I didn't twist any of your words. You told Joey her son was a moocher and he is not.

Now apologize to her on his behalf.

Then tell us all how the Libs I mentioned were not included in your insulting words.

I NEVER retreat from my words - that's your gig.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Last response, due to your hypocrisy... one post you admonish me because I don't give credit for a possible legality and in the next post you chastise another for recognizing that one may be in place.
> 
> Did you mean "lightning speed"? And I said nothing about re-reading posts.
> Do all of us a favor and go back on your meds, please.
> YOU are the one who enjoys reviewing the archives, have at it now that you know you should REREAD(no need for a hyphen, dummy) what I said about your statement.


Thought you were in "ignore" mode.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> You didn't read the *maximum out of pocket expense is about $6000.*


And if the person has only had the "savings account" for one or two years? Has a job that doesn't allow them to tuck away $6000 (or $2000 for that matter) in a year? To quote the song: Wipe out!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> HAHAHAA, I love that visual.


It's accurate, I'm afraid. Seem that one unfortunate little pup has been swilling the leftover eggnog. Wonder how long before the effects wear off and she goes ki-yi ing for home?


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Wouldn't it be wonderful if these "discussions" didn't always degenerate into a name-calling contest on both sides? I have yet to see such contests result in anything positive for either side. It just drives most of us away.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> It's accurate, I'm afraid. Seem that one unfortunate little pup has been swilling the leftover eggnog. Wonder how long before the effects wear off and she goes ki-yi ing for home?


What is the matter Susan? Cannot get the words out of your big mouth to apologize to those you insulted and have no compassion for?

Who is the one who just logged off and is running away from her own words with her tail between her legs, hmmm?

After twice challenging me and insisting that I'll retreat - look who turned tail and is gone.

That would be *you*.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> Wouldn't it be wonderful if these "discussions" didn't always degenerate into a name-calling contest on both sides? I have yet to see such contests result in anything positive for either side. It just drives most of us away.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> What is the matter Susan? Cannot get the words out of your big mouth to apologize to those you insulted and have no compassion for?
> 
> Who is the one who just logged off and is running away from her own words with her tail between her legs, hmmm?
> 
> ...


Not at all--I'm just waiting for you to trip over your own tongue, as you always do.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Not at all--I'm just waiting for you to trip over your own tongue, as you always do.


Let's hear you publicly apologize to all those you insulted and called moochers then; an active-duty military service member included.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Nice try at twisting my words, KPG. We've had verbal spats before, and you inevitably slink away with your tail plastered between your legs. Are you sure you want to continue this?


There is no slinking. Sometimes, however, your ignorance drives me away shaking my head. Angry, unhappy, aggressive Liberals are offensive in many ways. If your ideas are so wonderful, why were you not leading a happy life?

Personally, I find you boring. You are so bound by liberal bias that you get repetitive. No new thoughts, but you spew a lot of bile. There always seems more coming from such as you. It reminds me of the unclean spirits that Jesus drove out of the possessed. Unfortunately, our good arguments don't bring you wisdom. Your irrational ideas are beyond a mere mortal's power to change. So, you will have to find a higher power to rid yourself of that evil or keep drowning in it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> There is no slinking. Sometimes, however, your ignorance drives me away shaking my head. Angry, unhappy, aggressive Liberals are offensive in many ways. If your ideas are so wonderful, why were you not leading a happy life?
> 
> Personally, I find you boring. You are so bound by liberal bias that you get repetitive. No new thoughts, but you spew a lot of bile. There always seems more coming from such as you. It reminds me of the unclean spirits that Jesus drove out of the possessed. Unfortunately, our good arguments don't bring you wisdom. Your irrational ideas are beyond a mere mortal's power to change. So, you will have to find a higher power to rid yourself of that evil or keep drowning in it.


Do you totally misunderstand the meaning of liberal? 
How can you describe someone as liberal and then claim that they have no new ideas?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Not at all--I'm just waiting for you to trip over your own tongue, as you always do.


Susanmos2000: You are again on-line, and I'm still here waiting.

Let's hear you publicly apologize to all those you insulted and called moochers; an active-duty military service member included.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Do you totally misunderstand the meaning of liberal?
> How can you describe someone as liberal and then claim that they have no new ideas?


Liberal ideas predate you. Woodrow Wilson was a Liberal. Many of your ideas were a guiding light for Communists. These ideas didn't work well for those generations. The big government lie has been around for a long time. You aren't original, and they aren't truly new ideas. But, I know you think they are. Modern day, they are just more European nanny state ideas that drove Europe into near bankruptcy. The rich you hate so much have moved out of those countries. The governments have "taken" the retirement accounts of the general population in some countries. More people are poor. That is where Liberalism leads.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> There is no slinking. Sometimes, however, your ignorance drives me away shaking my head. Angry, unhappy, aggressive Liberals are offensive in many ways. If your ideas are so wonderful, why were you not leading a happy life?
> 
> Personally, I find you boring. You are so bound by liberal bias that you get repetitive. No new thoughts, but you spew a lot of bile. There always seems more coming from such as you. It reminds me of the unclean spirits that Jesus drove out of the possessed. Unfortunately, our good arguments don't bring you wisdom. Your irrational ideas are beyond a mere mortal's power to change. So, you will have to find a higher power to rid yourself of that evil or keep drowning in it.


I know hordes of well-adjusted, happy liberal and progressive people. Generally, the "good arguments" of the right are based on lies, and, when the instance fits, Christianity. Why so many good Christians don't see and react appropriately to the inequality in our current form of economics is beyond me. Oh, I just remembered how they do it----they rationalize.
Nothing ever changes with the group of conservatives on this site---No new ideas, no new opinions, no new realizations, no new examination of conscience. Time for the ultra-conservatives to look at their own acceptance of "evil."


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> I hear a lot of ignorance and frustration coming from you. I feel sorry for you. But, I would never support your ignorance or lifestyles. The CEO you should blame is Obama. He has crashed the entire healthcare system. His government can't build a website that is functional. Hospitals are closing or now unavailable to very sick people. He replaced a flawed , but functioning healthcare system with Medicaid or Medicaid-lite insurance for many with that better insurance, and the Medicaid-lite costs more to the enrollee. Medicaid for the masses of new enrolled is a bill everyone will pay. 6 million lost insurance and 2 million now have it. That is not a success. It will only get worse. Blame Obama for destroying an industry.
> 
> Now a new housing bubble is looming. No one has corrected the original housing issue because Obama didn't understand that Dodd-Frank caused it. Unlike. Bush , who tried to negate Dodd-Frank, but had a Democratic controlled Congress at the time, Obama had total control of Congress in 2009 and 2010, and as usual the numb nuts in Congress did the wrong things. So, we're still in the recession taking some into poverty. Until we get some adults in control of the country , it will just get worse.


Ok, I understand what you are trying to do here. Does it mean you are getting a little smarter? No, just trying to be sneaky. Repubs usually say Obama had total control for two years, blah, blah, blah, when they know he had control for only 4 months. Now instead of saying the usual, you say "Obama had total control in 2009 and 2010, trying to pass on the lie, cause you like that version better, but if we complain, then you can say, I didn't say two complete years. Well, "Bless your heart" but it doesn't make any difference cause I know exactly what you were trying to do and say. 
Are you concerned at all that the big banks are still trading in derivatives, just like they were before the crash?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Not at all--I'm just waiting for you to trip over your own tongue, as you always do.


Susanmos2000: You are still on-line, and I'm still here waiting.

Let's hear you publicly apologize to all those you insulted and called moochers; an active-duty military service member and Lib family members included.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Let's hear you publicly apologize to all those you insulted and called moochers then; an active-duty military service member included.


While I can't comment on what you're accusing her of, (I haven't read everything) I am very familiar with your tactics. You insult, call people names, and tell them how stupid they are day in and day out without any apology or any feeling that you've done anything wrong. Very strange behavior for a self-proclaimed Christian person.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

NJG said:


> Ok, I understand what you are trying to do here. Does it mean you are getting a little smarter? No, just trying to be sneaky. Repubs usually say Obama had total control for two years, blah, blah, blah, when they know he had control for only 4 months. Now instead of saying the usual, you say "Obama had total control in 2009 and 2010, trying to pass on the lie, cause you like that version better, but if we complain, then you can say, I didn't say two complete years. Well, "Bless your heart" but it doesn't make any difference cause I know exactly what you were trying to do and say.
> Are you concerned at all that the big banks are still trading in derivatives, just like they were before the crash?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Let's hear you publicly apologize to all those you insulted and called moochers then; an active-duty military service member included.


Because no conservative would call anyone moochers, right? Like those that "get food stamps, free health care, free phones and the government wants us to believe these people are at work" blah, blah, blah....


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Not at all--I'm just waiting for you to trip over your own tongue, as you always do.


Susanmos2000: You are still on-line, and I'm still here waiting. You've called in all your troops who you didn't insult for support, but still cannot apologize for your words. I'll continue to wait for your apology to all those you chasticized.

Let's hear you publicly apologize to all those you insulted and called moochers; an active-duty military service member and Lib family members included.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> There is no slinking. Sometimes, however, your ignorance drives me away shaking my head. Angry, unhappy, aggressive Liberals are offensive in many ways. If your ideas are so wonderful, why were you not leading a happy life?
> 
> Personally, I find you boring. You are so bound by liberal bias that you get repetitive. No new thoughts, but you spew a lot of bile. There always seems more coming from such as you. It reminds me of the unclean spirits that Jesus drove out of the possessed. Unfortunately, our good arguments don't bring you wisdom. Your irrational ideas are beyond a mere mortal's power to change. So, you will have to find a higher power to rid yourself of that evil or keep drowning in it.


Frankly KC, I fail to see the logic in your argument that young people should both plan carefully for their futures AND refuse to purchase medical insurance.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

alcameron said:


> While I can't comment on what you're accusing her of, (I haven't read everything) I am very familiar with your tactics. You insult, call people names, and tell them how stupid they are day in and day out without any apology or any feeling that you've done anything wrong. Very strange behavior for a self-proclaimed Christian person.


Yes, and now she's trying something new--reposting the same demand for an apology an endless number of times. I'm waiting to see how long she can keep it up--should be interesting.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> I hear a lot of ignorance and frustration coming from you. I feel sorry for you. But, I would never support your ignorance or lifestyles. The CEO you should blame is Obama. He has crashed the entire healthcare system. His government can't build a website that is functional. Hospitals are closing or now unavailable to very sick people. He replaced a flawed , but functioning healthcare system with Medicaid or Medicaid-lite insurance for many with that better insurance, and the Medicaid-lite costs more to the enrollee. Medicaid for the masses of new enrolled is a bill everyone will pay. 6 million lost insurance and 2 million now have it. That is not a success. It will only get worse. Blame Obama for destroying an industry.
> 
> Now a new housing bubble is looming. No one has corrected the original housing issue because Obama didn't understand that Dodd-Frank caused it. Unlike. Bush , who tried to negate Dodd-Frank, but had a Democratic controlled Congress at the time, Obama had total control of Congress in 2009 and 2010, and as usual the numb nuts in Congress did the wrong things. So, we're still in the recession taking some into poverty. Until we get some adults in control of the country , it will just get worse.


The hospital I was speaking of closed well before Obama was elected, probably before he was even considering it!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> Your ignorance of what causes a recession and poverty is what is pitiful. Those who fail to learn are doomed to repeat their problems.


So is that something Bush failed to learn, that giving tax cuts to the rich does not stimulate the economy or create jobs. All they did with their tax cuts was stash them in an off shore bank, like Mitt Romney. You republicans tried to shove that jackass down our throats as a smart businessman. I hate to think where we would be if he had won.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

GWPlver said:


> Because no conservative would call anyone moochers, right? Like those that "get food stamps, free health care, free phones and the government wants us to believe these people are at work" blah, blah, blah....


It's true, GW--I'm always surprised at how often the same conservatives who blast the economically disadvantaged later admit to collecting Medicare, disability, food stamps, and all the rest. Somehow that those "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" speeches they like to give don't seem to apply to them personally.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Thank you, susanmos2000, for showing others your cowardice and inability to apologize for your insulting words particularly to all serving military members, prior or present, who protect you and your big mouth with the ability to speak freely.

As I've said prior and as you've proven again by your recent words, I'll post this again to you specifically:

_"Since you are not willing to stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them."_


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Thank you, susanmos2000, for showing others your cowardice and inability to apologize for your insulting words particularly to all serving military members, prior or present, who protect you and your big mouth with the ability to speak freely.
> 
> As I've said prior and as you've proven again by your recent words, I'll post this again to you specifically:
> 
> _"Since you are not willing to stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them."_


Giving up so soon? I'm disappointed in you, KPG.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> It's true, GW--I'm always surprised at how often the same conservatives who blast the economically disadvantaged later admit to collecting Medicare, disability, food stamps, and all the rest. Somehow that those "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" speeches they like to give don't seem to apply to them personally.


Again, you lie. You didn't name one Conservative that said what you accused them of earlier, and you cannot name one Conservative on this thread that does and says what you now describe.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Giving up so soon? I'm disappointed in you, KPG.


I did not give up. You are both a coward and a liar and ran until you called in troops to get your sorry butt out of the sling you caught it in.

Don't forget where to stand amongst the troops because you don't have the inner strength to apologize for your disgusting words to them.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> There you go - you dressed down Joey's son for being a moocher and yet ignore and refuse to do the same to your mooching Lib buds. Joey's son ISNT a moocher, your Lib buds' kids ARE according to your beliefs.
> 
> To use NJG's favorite words: *YOU* are a *hypocrite.*
> 
> Of course, you now are trying to make another point to avoid your own stupidity and obvious mistakes. Typical Lib.


Oh, you make me laugh KPG, you are the hypocrite, no doubt about that.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I did not give up. You are both a coward and a liar and ran until you called in troops to get your sorry butt out of the sling you caught it in.


No, dear--I was drafting a scene that involved a lynching and got too distracted to respond to you in depth. Still, I'm willing to give credit where credit is due--popping back from time to time to read your posts did give me some valuable insight into the mob mentality.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Spend your time reading how Dodd-Frank began and is uniquely responsible for the housing market crash AND the Wall St crisis and the recession that followed that Obama feeds with his policies today.
> 
> You never go into ignore mode, you'll keep responding as you always do.


The banks being deregulated and trading in derivatives was the cause of the crash. Telling a lie doesn't make it so.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> That sounds a lot like what happened in a neighboring city last year. I was reasonably certain at the time that it wasn't an isolated incident.


Maybe that was where the CEO went to after closing our hospital. Our closing happened about a decade ago, give or take a few years, and the CEO ended up walking away with a lovely severance package.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> My brain is totally boggled. What are your sources for the comments you make?


She doesn't need a source, only her imagination. They believe if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth, just like Romney did during the last election.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> You didn't read the *maximum out of pocket expense is about $6000.* They can add additional to the Savings Account each year. But it the total they have to pay for health care is only $6000 plus much smaller premiums. I doubt they would be wiped out, like bankruptcy.
> 
> Have you heard about people that have been turned away because they cannot show they have the ability to pay the deductible? How many middle class people would be able to pay $5,000 with having less than 3 months to know about it?


Yup I was turned away because of payment issues and I've seen and taken care of people in the ER turned away for that issue who had to wait until it was an "emergency" for the law to kick in that they could not be turned away. Those signs at the doctor's offices and radiology offices that say, "payment due at time of service" are serious.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> Wouldn't it be wonderful if these "discussions" didn't always degenerate into a name-calling contest on both sides? I have yet to see such contests result in anything positive for either side. It just drives most of us away.


I do my best not to call people names  and I think I've succeeded so far.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Susanmos2000: You are still on-line, and I'm still here waiting. You've called in all your troops who you didn't insult for support, but still cannot apologize for your words. I'll continue to wait for your apology to all those you chasticized.
> 
> Let's hear you publicly apologize to all those you insulted and called moochers; an active-duty military service member and Lib family members included.


Get over your self-righteous self. What makes you think you have the right to ask for an apology from any one? You insult people more than anyone and never apologize for anything.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Susanmos2000: You are again on-line, and I'm still here waiting.
> 
> Let's hear you publicly apologize to all those you insulted and called moochers; an active-duty military service member included.


I forgot are you one of the "insulted"? If not then perhaps those insulted could respond and let her know. I think, if memory serves, it was a post to joeysmomma and I have not seen her post anything about being insulted at the comment.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> I do my best not to call people names  and I think I've succeeded so far.


Yes, you have succeeded. You prove that it can be done, eh?

I'm in a contest with myself to see whether I can stick it out to the bitter end :~).


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> Yes, you have succeeded. You prove that it can be done, eh?
> 
> I'm in a contest with myself to see whether I can stick it out to the bitter end :~).


Lol, we shall see if we succeed ;-)


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> What bank did he stash money? It must have been the same one Obama did.
> 
> Check both of their tax returns. No money was stashed by either one. What it shows is that both have investments in companies that are owned by a company that has its home office in a foreign company. They both have a foreign tax credit on their tax return. That means they have reported that investment income on their Federal tax return and since they have already paid tax to that country, that amount of tax can be subtracted from what they owe here. Any American can do the same thing, no matter their income.


Romney released only what he wanted you to know, but was way too secretive with most of his tax info. Defend him all you want, but you don't know the whole story. No one but he and his accountants do. He even failed to report some charitable giving he did so it would look like he paid a higher tax rate than he actually did. What a phony, and you defend him. Amazing


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> Yes. They are obviously making enough profit to pay their CEO $9,247 an hour, which comes out to $369,880 a week compared to $290 for an employee on minimum wage so that tells a lot about how rich the company is. It tell us that the tax payers are compensating the McDonalds employees with food stamps. The republicans talk all the time about cutting food stamps, but no one will comment on this situation, except to complain about the employee that did not further their education and therefor it is their own fault.
> 
> I saw on tv today that the senate will bring the unemployment ins bill and the minimum wage bill etc to the floor of the senate and if they don't pass, bring them to the floor again and again. Let it be known to the American people who is voting against them. Republicans can talk all they want against these things, but they are forgetting something. There are more and more of us every day, more and more people who believe these things should pass. More and more people that were middle class and see their wages stagnant while the top 1% is making more and more money all the time. More and more people paying attention to the income inequality in this country. When some states brought raising the minimum wage to a vote it passed. The people are paying attention.


Congress is responsible for what is happening to the middle class, not just the Republicans.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Knit crazy said:


> Since you don't know me, that is an assumption you can't make. Willingness to work hard is a virtue. Working smart and preparing for life is the foundation of success.


KC you are wasting your time. This is a group that wants to throw money at the problem (increase minimum wage) and expect that to solve the poverty problem. We have had a war on poverty for the last 50+ years, and how has that been going? Poverty has increased under this administration. They don't think these low/no skilled workers can learn on the job. They don't want them to have ambition, that would mean the workers just might have that chance to get out from under the poverty umbrella. It comes down to the Democrat's fear of losing their base. They bash all sound ideas regarding the economy, jobs and growth because of that fear.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> KC you are wasting your time. This is a group that wants to throw money at the problem (increase minimum wage) and expect that to solve the poverty problem. We have had a war on poverty for the last 50+ years, and how has that been going? Poverty has increased under this administration. They don't think these low/no skilled workers can learn on the job. They don't want them to have ambition, that would mean the workers just might have that chance to get out from under the poverty umbrella. It comes down to the Democrat's fear of losing their base. They bash all sound ideas regarding the economy, jobs and growth because of that fear.


Oh, please! Do you think raising the minimum wage is going to make the poor rich enough to become republicans??. Good grief!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> susanmos2000 we can not force you to apologize,
> 
> Since she has not willingly done it on her own, we know she is not sorry. Let's just get on with our lives.
> 
> BTW: both of my sons have paid their own way with some help, both own their homes. one for 10 years and the other 13.


Yes, Joey, we do now know that Susan is not sorry for her words about your son and that which she implied about others.

However, we also know, her son will never become the men your two sons have until and unless he finds his own way in life ignoring his mom's guidance and mentoring in his early childhood.

I thank you for your instilling into your family the desire for serving, the compassion of helping others and following Christian beliefs. Thanks, too, for their service (and your support of them) to our Country.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> So true, Patty. These characters are in one breath urging young people to spurn health insurance on the grounds that those healthy young bodies don't need regular medical care, in the next saying that those who don't plan wisely for their future deserve exactly what they get.
> 
> Unbelievable.


They are not saying that at all. A large portion of young and healthy individuals have always felt they are invincible. They have not purchased health insurance for this reason, it is nothing new. In the case of Obamacare, they are doing the same thing. They are not purchasing HC because they can't afford it, they would rather pay the penalty and don't see that paying more now will help them later in life. Maybe things would be different if the economy was better, who knows.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

alcameron said:


> While I can't comment on what you're accusing her of, (I haven't read everything) I am very familiar with your tactics. You insult, call people names, and tell them how stupid they are day in and day out without any apology or any feeling that you've done anything wrong. Very strange behavior for a self-proclaimed Christian person.


And here we have the Easter/Christmas Christian who shows up solely to insult me when she hasn't been part of the conversation for months AND admits she has no idea of the present discussion.

How very typical and obvious that Susan had to spend her time calling in gang-style troops of support.

Pathetic. Cowardly. Expected.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

GWPlver said:


> Because no conservative would call anyone moochers, right? Like those that "get food stamps, free health care, free phones and the government wants us to believe these people are at work" blah, blah, blah....


Another gang recruit of Susan's who hasn't posted in months or probably never within this thread as part of the discussion.

But, naturally, is here to support Susan who got herself in dire straits running her mouth.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Maybe that was where the CEO went to after closing our hospital. Our closing happened about a decade ago, give or take a few years, and the CEO ended up walking away with a lovely severance package.


How many times did Bain Capital do that kind of thing? 
It picks a successful company and then takes it over with a leveraged buyout. Borrow the money from a bank, pay off the owner and the debt becomes the debt of the company, not Bain Capital. 
Why would a bank even loan money to allow someone to do this to a successful company? It's because the bank doesn't keep that debt. It sells it to investors so someone else is the fall guy. Bain has assumed none of the debt and Romney also had the company borrow money that went in his pocket. 
If you want to read about how ruthless Bain was look up Baxter International, bought by Bain and then merged with another company, it then became Dade Behring. Quite a story of the job Bain and Romney did to them, and that crooked Jackass wanted to be our president.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Yes, and now she's trying something new--reposting the same demand for an apology an endless number of times. I'm waiting to see how long she can keep it up--should be interesting.


It is laughable already.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> They are not saying that at all. A large portion of young and healthy individuals have always felt they are invincible. They have not purchased health insurance for this reason, it is nothing new.


If that were always the case then the GOP wouldn't have had to spend millions and millions of dollars trying to dissuade these young folks from signing up.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Maybe that was where the CEO went to after closing our hospital. Our closing happened about a decade ago, give or take a few years, and the CEO ended up walking away with a lovely severance package.


How many times did Bain Capital do that? 
It picks a successful company and then takes it over with a leveraged buyout. Borrow the money from a bank, pay off the owner and the debt becomes the debt of the company, not Bain Capital. 
Why would a bank even loan money to allow someone to do this to a successful company? It's because the bank doesn't keep that debt. It sells it to investors so someone else is the fall guy. Bain has assumed none of the debt and Romney also had the company borrow money that went in his pocket. 
If you want to read about how ruthless Bain was look up Baxter International, bought by Bain and then merged with another company, it then became Dade Behring. Quite a story of the job Bain and Romney did to them, and then he wanted to be our president.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> No, dear--I was drafting a scene that involved a lynching and got too distracted to respond to you in depth. Still, I'm willing to give credit where credit is due--popping back from time to time to read your posts did give me some valuable insight into the mob mentality.


No, Shemal, it took you nearly ninety minutes to find only *two * people willing to support you by posting ugly words to others as you did. Neither of your gang-style recruits have even been part of this thread nor are they your buds who you insulted.

Pretty lonely in the trench isn't it, albeit absent of an in-depth post as well.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> I forgot are you one of the "insulted"? If not then perhaps those insulted could respond and let her know. I think, if memory serves, it was a post to joeysmomma and I have not seen her post anything about being insulted at the comment.


No, Lkholcomb, I am not. Susan insulted many yet refused to apologize publicly to anyone.

Joey was insulted and has e-mailed me privately. Joey has also posted since you wrote this post above.

Susan's words were hateful and hurtful.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No, Shemal, it took you nearly ninety minutes to find only *two * people willing to support you by posting ugly words to others as you did. Neither of your gang-style recruits have even been part of this thread nor are they your buds who you insulted.
> 
> Pretty lonely in the trench isn't it, albeit absent of an in-depth post as well.


Move on KPG. Why beat a dead horse to death. Susan owes you and Joey nothing. Let us see all the apologies you have made before you ask anyone else for one. You have said the most hateful and hurtful things ever. Shall we go look them up.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> KC you are wasting your time. This is a group that wants to throw money at the problem (increase minimum wage) and expect that to solve the poverty problem. We have had a war on poverty for the last 50+ years, and how has that been going? Poverty has increased under this administration. They don't think these low/no skilled workers can learn on the job. They don't want them to have ambition, that would mean the workers just might have that chance to get out from under the poverty umbrella. It comes down to the Democrat's fear of losing their base. They bash all sound ideas regarding the economy, jobs and growth because of that fear.


Yep, so tiresome and their ideas have been proven not to work but they keep hitting their heads against the wall, never improve their lots in life but give themselves more suffering to deal with because of their decisions.


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Giving up so soon? I'm disappointed in you, KPG.


She must....she surely knows what one of her cohorts posted in another knitting forum. And so do I.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No, Shemal, it took you nearly ninety minutes to find only *two * people willing to support you by posting ugly words to others as you did. Neither of your gang-style recruits have even been part of this thread nor are they your buds who you insulted.
> 
> Pretty lonely in the trench isn't it, albeit absent of an in-depth post as well.


Not really--sure beats that none-too-steady altar you're teetering upon.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

GWPlver said:


> She must....she surely knows what one of her cohorts posted in another knitting forum. And so do I.


Same, GW--bad as this site can get, the stuff posted in other forums is enough to make one's hair stand on end.


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yes, Joey, we do now know that Susan is not sorry for her words about your son and that which she implied about others.
> 
> However, we also know, her son will never become the men your two sons have until and unless he finds his own way in life ignoring his mom's guidance and mentoring in his early childhood.
> 
> I thank you for your instilling into your family the desire for serving, the compassion of helping others and following Christian beliefs. Thanks, too, for their service (and your support of them) to our Country.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No, Lkholcomb, I am not. Susan insulted many yet refused to apologize publicly to anyone.
> 
> Joey was insulted and has e-mailed me privately. Joey has also posted since you wrote this post above.
> 
> Susan's words were hateful and hurtful.


 :XD: :XD:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I am only defending what he stated on his tax return. It is no different than Obama's. I do not know if either one lied. That is not for me to say. If you do not have positive proof that he lied on his tax return , you are spreading a lie.


He wouldn't let his tax returns out so it could be proven either way. If President Obama had been the one that refused to show his tax returns, we both know you would have said he was hiding something but since it is Romney, it is not for you to say. You repeat a lot of things you do not have positive proof of, but has never stopped you before. Pretty hypocritical of you, I think.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> And here we have the Easter/Christmas Christian who shows up solely to insult me when she hasn't been part of the conversation for months AND admits she has no idea of the present discussion.
> 
> How very typical and obvious that Susan had to spend her time calling in gang-style troops of support.
> 
> Pathetic. Cowardly. Expected.


I haven't been here for all the conversation, but that has nothing to do with knowing your tactics. And you're assuming you know what kind of Christian I am. You must be God herself!! Nobody (not even Susan) "called in gang-style troops of support." Once again you're applying your thoughts and style to others. I would say you're the impostor Christian here, and I can see that from what you write about and say to people on this site as well as what you spout about certain policies.


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Same, GW--bad as this site can get, the stuff posted in other forums is enough to make one's hair stand on end.


Oh Susan, I'm one of your gangsta friends!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

GWPlver said:


> She must....she surely knows what one of her cohorts posted in another knitting forum. And so do I.


Huh?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

GWPlver said:


> Oh Susan, I'm one of your gangsta friends!


Me, too, I guess.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

GWPlver said:


> :XD: :XD:


I know, huh? Cry me a flippin' river...


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

GWPlver said:


> :XD: :XD:


How nice - you also do not support our troops, or at least enjoy hearing them be defamed and mocked.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> I know, huh? Cry me a flippin' river...


Get a hold of yourself.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I looked up both companies you mentioned. Nothing about Bain Capital was mentioned in either one. Where did you get your information?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dade_Behring
> 
> ...


Once again, she is lying about Bain Capital, Romney and what each does in the business they were in. Again, she doesn't understand financial business.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

A statement about a true "fixed" income:

http://www.politicususa.com/the-dirty-thirty-page

The Dirty Thirty 
Look at all the things wrong in America right now from the real obvious: poverty, lack of healthcare, crime, education, unemployment, to the less obvious: pollution of both our air and drinking water, the effects of global warming on our weather patterns.
Then look at the Republican solutions since 2010: legislation against the teaching of evolution, banning the word gay from schools, denying women control over their own uteruses, banning contraception, legislation to put children back to work and limit the pay of middle class workers, legislating the Ten Commandments,  none of which address any of the problems faced by Americans today. Even when they do touch on an actual problem  proclaiming days of prayer to combat drought  the solution is laughable.

The GOP has no intention at all of addressing any real problems; they are, however, very anxious to address non-existent problems, to identify and then legislate against them, like people eating food made from human fetuses. We all know thats a huge problem in this country, cannibalism. And then there are all those women being coerced into having abortions. There has been no evidence of job creation legislation coming from the Republican-controlled House. Nothing at all.

The government needs money and the Republican solution to that is to cut taxes on the rich, pay oil companies to charge us exorbitant prices at the gas pump, and raise taxes on the poor and middle class, segments of the population that are already fighting to survive in a still shaky economy. For a decade weve been pouring billions into wars overseas and what better time to start a new war, when the economy can barely support the two weve been fighting? They dont want Obama intervening in Libya, an inexpensive affair both in terms of money and American lives, but they are more than happy to urge a war on Iran which is sure to g on for years. We barely got out of Iraq with our skins intact and they want to go into the even less hospitable Iran.

It seems conservatives have descended into madness, a sort of group psychosis, a collective desire to leap off the cliff in a form of ritual mass suicide, taking the rest of us with them. Rather than legislation to resolve any of our real problems, they have dedicated themselves to grid locking government so that nothing at all gets one outside of their social agenda.

What is an American to do?

Well, we can fight back against the propaganda and misinformation. On March 14, 2011 we first published a list of thirty pieces of Republican legislation that Republicans are using to destroy America and called it The Dirty Thirty. That original list has been updated several times and grown significantly although the list is incomplete, given there have been a thousand bills alone restricting a womans right to abortion. If most of the laws directed toward Womens Reproductive Rights seem petty and punitive, wellthey are.

Some readers have objected to the use of the term war in this series of articles but I believe in calling things for what they are and there is no other way to describe the sustained legislative attack on womens reproductive rights, marriage equality, the environment, education, children, the poor and unemployed and the middle class. The chart below from the Guttmacher Institute is illustrative of my point:

The New York Times relatesthat Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington State, the top-ranking Republican woman in the House, was quoted by The Daily Beast last week as saying that Democrats were fabricating the war on women to distract from real issues. Read and decide for yourself if this war on women is imaginary. As Joan Walsh writes on AlterNet,

Democrats didnt make the GOP presidential field back personhood laws that would criminalize some forms of birth control. They didnt force the newly elected House GOP to make defunding Planned Parenthood their first legislative goal. And they didnt propose the Blunt Amendment that would have allowed employers to withhold health insurance coverage not only for contraception, but for any treatment they disapproved of

(As always, new items and categories in red  note that hyperlinks in new material are not readily apparent because they too are red).

The War on Womens Reproductive Rights

Despite an electorate that is overwhelmingly pro-choice, there is no doubt that the GOPs first goal is to deprive women of their reproductive rights and to frame that argument not as one of health but religion. It is in fact so important an issue to the GOP that out of some 40,000 laws of all types enacted in 2011, as RMuse wrote here recently, there were nearly 1,000 bills in state legislatures to restrict a womans right to legal abortion services (up from 950 in 2010). Alternet lists the 10 worst states in which to be a woman. The lone piece of good news was the unexpected sanity of Mississippi voters. Interestingly, the GOP is now trying to co-opt the War on Women for their own, accusing liberals of waging war on pro-choice women, or declaring that Obama is waging a war on women and that the Obama White House has been a hostile work environment. This is while Congress, already in 2012, has taken no less than eight votes against women  in just three months. It is frightening to think what the final toll might be by December 31.

o A recent report from the Guttmacher Institute details the extent of 2011-s war on Womens Reproductive Rights. The report states,

By almost any measure, issues related to reproductive health and rights at the state level received unprecedented attention in 2011. In the 50 states combined, legislators introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 introduced in 2010. By years end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states, an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009. (Note: This analysis refers to reproductive health and rights-related provisions, rather than bills or laws, since bills introduced and eventually enacted in the states contain multiple relevant provisions.)
Fully 68% of these new provisions92 in 24 states-restrict access to abortion services, a striking increase from last year, when 26% of new provisions restricted abortion. The 92 new abortion restrictions enacted in 2011 shattered the previous record of 34 adopted in 2005.
Abortion restrictions took many forms: bans (6 states), waiting periods (3 states), ultrasound 5 states), insurance coverage (3 states joined the existing 5 with such restrictions), clinic regulations (4 states), medication abortion (7 states).
o Anti-abortion Laws

Republican legislators have introduced a wide array of laws designed to either outlaw abortion outright or to discourage it by making ridiculous and sometimes humiliating requirements of women who might consider having a pregnancy terminated. These include so-called TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) regulations.

Republicans in the House proposed a bill (HR 1179) called Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011. The bill, introduced by Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb), allows health care providers and pharmacists to deny birth control to women if it conflicts with their religious or moral convictions. The Senate is expected to vote on its version of HR 1179 during the week of February 27 where it is known as S. 1467, whose primary sponsor is Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and has become an amendment to Transportation Authorization Bill S. 1813. The Blunt Amendment was defeated in the Senate on a narrow vote of 51 to 48 on March 1, 2012.
In Texas, Rep. George Lavender, R-Texarkana, has proposed a bill (House Bill 2988) that would prevent any abortion except in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother.
In Georgia, a bill, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (SB 209) sponsored by Sen. Barry Loudermilk, R-Cassville, would close all abortion clinics in the state and require abortions to be performed in hospitals. This bill was tabled by the rules committee on March 11, 2011.
South Dakota wants to require spiritual counseling (House Bill 1217) at religious centers before allowing an abortion to take place. The bill was signed into law in March 2011 and challenged in court by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU in May. We still havent heard what the courts will decide in this case (though a federal judge has suspended most of the law in the interim) and Republicans arent waiting to find out. The South Dakota House of Representatives approved a bill on February 13 sponsored by Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon that changes counseling requirements. Women seeking abortions will still have to wait 72 hours and endure spiritual counseling but now requires those counselors be licensed. The consulting doctor will now have to decide if it is likely the woman will develop mental health problems as a result of the abortion. As a side note, in both 2006 and 2008 voters rejected attempts to outlaw most abortions.
Also in South Dakota, H.B. 1166, which was enacted in 2005, was, says RHRealityCheck.org, billed as an informed consent law, but what it really mandated was misinformation, requiring doctors to tell a woman seeking an abortion that she faces an increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide, a claim for which there is absolutely no scientific or medical evidence. On September 2, 2011, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out important provisions of a South Dakota law that literally forced doctors to lie to their patients.
The Texas State House of Representatives has passed the Sonogram Bill (HB 15), a measure requiring women to get a sonogram before ending a pregnancy, forcing even victims of rape to have a sonogram at least 24 hours before the procedure. Gov. Rick Perry has signed the bill into law, which takes effect September 1, 2011. There are exceptions in cases of rape and incest. As Planned Parenthood reports: While a woman can opt-out of seeing the sonogram image and hearing the heart tone, she cannot opt-out of a medically unnecessary sonogram, nor can she opt-out of the fetal description except within very narrow parameters for situations of rape, incest, judicial bypasses, and fetal anomalies.
Also from Texas, the passage of SB 257, passed by House and Senate on May 5, 2011 and signed by the governor on May 17, 2011 provides for Choose Life license plates. As explained by Planned Parenthood: The state will now produce Choose Life license plates and distribute revenue from the sale of the plates to anti-choice groups such as crisis pregnancy centers (CPC). The Alternative to Abortion program currently receives $4 million dollars a year in taxpayer money through the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) that is distributed to CPCs. CPC are unregulated anti-choice organizations that do not provide any medical services and are known to spend nearly half of the tax dollars they receive on advertising and administrative costs, not client services.
Georgia State Representative Bobby Franklin has introduced a bill that would not only make abortion illegal but would make miscarriages illegal.
Indiana (House Bill 1210) wants to force doctors to lie to women about abortion causing breast cancer despite medical evidence to the contrary in order to discourage women from having abortions
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, (HR 3) that would limit the rape exemption for abortion to forcible rape which would have defined many rapes, for example, statutory rape of a minor, as non-forcible and therefore not covered by federal assistance. Mother Jones has reported another aspect of this legislation, that the IRS would be turned into abortion-cops: Were this to become law, people could end up in an audit, the subject of which could be abortion, rape, and incest, says Christopher Bergin, the head of Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, not-for-profit tax policy group. If you pass the law like this, the IRS would be required to enforce it.
Representative Joe Pitts (R-PA) introduced a bill (HR 358 - the Protect Life Act) would allow states to deny insurance coverage for birth control meaning hospitals could deny abortion procedures and transport to a facility that would provide a woman with an abortion even if failure to provide an abortion would mean the death of the woman. The Let Women Die Act passed the House on 10/13/11.
Louisiana State Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, in what he calls a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, wants to make both women and doctors who have and perform abortions guilty of the crime of feticide. This personhood amendment (House Bill 587)would make no exceptions for cases of danger to the health of the mother, incest or rape but would for medically necessary abortions. Feticide is currently punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison. LaBruzzo once wanted to pay poor women $1,000 to have their tubes tied because he was afraid they were reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated people who presumably pay more tax revenue to the government, says Nola.com. Update: HB 587 became HB 645 on May 25, 2011 and to the relief of sane people everywhere eventually derailed in the state House.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed (by a 234-182 vote) an amendment sponsored by Virginia Foxx (R-NC) prohibiting teaching hospitals from receiving federal funding if they teach doctors how to perform abortions. Unfortunately, as a result of this legislation new physicians will not receive the training needed to save womens lives. As Correntewire.com puts it, 234 members of the House voted to ban the teaching of medical procedures that are vital in saving the lives of women who have miscarried, or have complications that endanger their health, or who arent even pregnant.
In Ohio, Janet Porters Heartbeat Bill criminalizing abortion and which was backed by Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann, passed the Ohio State House on June 28, 2011. It prohibits abortions after only about six weeks, a time when many women do not yet even know they are pregnant, said Armond Budish, leader of the Democratic caucus in the House. The bill is currently being held up in the Senate. See the latest update on Porters antics at Right Wing Watch.
Also in Ohio, The state budget, approved June 28, 2011 by the Senate, bars state hospitals from performing abortions.
Mother Jones reports that Every abortion provider in the state of Kansas has been denied a license to continue operating as of July 1 [2011]. This is the result, according to Mother Jones, of passage in April of a law directing the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to author new facility standards for abortion clinics, which the staunchly anti-abortion GOP governor, Sam Brownback, signed into law on May 16. It turns out that if you want to know how these new rules were developed, you cant, because the Republicans dont want to tell you, and wont.
On July 1, 2011 a budget impasse shut down the government of the state of Minnesota. The Republican majorities in the house and senate refuse to negotiate in good faith, insisting that a list of social issues be included in the budget, including abortion restrictions.
In Arizona, the House of Representatives passed House Bill 2443 sponsored by Republican Rep. Steve Montenegro, on February 21, 2011. The bill, if passed into law, would criminalize abortions being performed because of the race or sex of the fetus. Montenegro claims that there are targeted communities that the abortion industry targets. If made law, HB 2443 would require that women seeking abortions in Arizona will have to sign a statement declaring that race or sex was not the reason they sought the procedure.
Also from Arizona, there is House Bill 2036 which would ban abortions after 20 weeks. It was passed by the Senate on March 29, 2012 and will now go before the House for consideration. As Mother Jones reports, the legislation is modeled on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act designed by the National Right to Life Committee and the ACLU has called it the most extreme bill of its kind. Update: Governor Jan Brewer signed HB 2036 on April 12, 2012, which as Raw Story points out, takes Nebraskas 20-week abortion ban one step further by starting the clock on pregnancies at the womans last last menstrual period, which could be two weeks before fertilization. In other words, your pregnancy legally begins before conception! Take that, science!
And another gem from Arizona is House Bill 2800, introduced in February and now referred to the Senate Rules Committee, which would deprive Planned Parenthood of public funds, depriving women of healthcare unrelated to abortion. Update [4.24.12]: the Arizona State Senate approved the bill on Tuesday, April 24; the House has previously approved it. Planned Parenthood says the ban would affect some 19,000 women in the state.
Oh, and we cant forget Arizonas House Bill 2625, which as azcentral.com reports, would allow companies to opt out of covering contraception in their health-care plans for religious reasons, proving once and for all that Arizona Republicans are legislating religion in violation of the Constitution, and that their religion trumps your beliefs.
In Illinois Rep. Darlene Senger, R-Naperville in March 2011 submitted a bill  anti-abortion legislation mind, which would require clinics that perform more than 50 abortions a year to meet the same regulatory requirements as other medical outpatient surgery clinics  to the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee. Why, you ask? Because the agriculture committee is dominated by conservative downstate Democrats and Republicans. And guess what? They passed it: unanimously.
In Florida, during a debate about a bill that would prohibit governments from deducting union dues from a workers paycheck, Rep. Scott Randolph (D-Orlando) said if my wifes uterus was incorporate the legislature would be talking about deregulating. Rep. Randolph was then taken to task for using the word uterus by the House leadership, which said that the word was language that would be considered inappropriate for children and other guests.
In Florida Republicans passed House Bill 501 redistributes funds from Choose Life license plates to the Ocala-based Choose Life, Inc, which the Florida Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates says will result in more funds being given to crisis pregnancy centers, anti-abortion organizations that falsely market themselves as professional health facilities.
In Virginia, RH Reality Check reports that Governor Bob McDonnell found time to issue regulations for first trimester abortion providers that go well beyond any existing regulations seen in other states, including South Carolina, according to the Virginia Coalition to Protect Womens Health. Apparently, these draft regulations  (SB 924) were formulated under an emergency process that bypasses public review and comment periods and standard economic assessments for new regulations and is undemocratic on its face. They will be put into effect up to 18 months to 2 years in advance of any permanent regulations. In a blatant attempt to eliminate first trimester abortions, reports RH Reality Check, the regulations contain what can only be called ridiculous mandates for abortion providers, such as requiring specific sizes of rooms and lengths of hallways which have nothing to do with either patient care or safety. See also the article in Mother Jones about how these new rules would affect the Falls Church Planned Parenthood Clinic.
In the U.S. House the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) otherwise known as HR 3541, is being called a civil rights bill by its Republican sponsors. Under this bill, physicians would be banned from performing abortions based on the race of the fetus, something that does not happen anyway, apparently, since nobody could offer any evidence that it did.
WRAL.com reports that A Cabarrus County lawmaker wants to bring back public hangings in North Carolina as a deterrent to crime, and he says doctors who perform abortions should be in the line to the gallows. According to WRAL, Republican Rep. Larry Pittman, who was appointed to the District 82 House seat in October, expressed his views in an email sent Wednesday to every member of the General Assembly. Pittman said in his email: If murderers (and I would include abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers, as well) are actually executed, it will at least have the deterrent effect upon them. For my money, we should go back to public hangings, which would be more of a deterrent to others, as well. Pittman calls himself a pastor and says he didnt mean to send the email to everybody, only to Rep. Tim Moore, R-Cleveland. Republicans need to learn to be careful around demon-technology.
In Iowa, House File 2298, introduced by Rep. Kim Pearson, R-Pleasant Hill, would criminalize all abortions, including those resulting from rape and incest and would make no exceptions for the life of the mother when put at risk by her pregnancy. The punishment for ending a life (excepting of course the life of a mother) would be life in prison and women who miscarry will face criminal investigation.
In Georgia, Senate Bill 434, sponsored by Sen. Judson Hill, R-Marietta, (he proposed calling it the Federal Abortion Mandate Opt-Out Act) would ban healthcare providers from covering abortion except in cases where the mothers life is endangered.
Also in Georgia, Senate Bill 438, sponsored by Sen. Mike Crane (R-Newman), would provide that no health insurance plan for employees of the state shall offer coverage for abortion services.
Again in Georgia, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on February 15, 2012, A bill to limit abortions is also being considered in the House. House Bill 954, sponsored by Rep. Doug McKillip, R-Athens, was filed last week and is what is commonly referred to as a fetal pain bill. It says that a fetus can react to pain at 20 weeks, and it seeks to outlaw abortions at or past 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Kansas Republicans have unleashed a blitzkrieg on womens reproductive rights. A Kansas house subcommittee will began considering a bill Wednesday that draws inspiration from anti-abortion laws in Texas, Oklahoma and Arizona. Reports HuffPo: The bill includes provisions similar to those found in other state laws now facing federal lawsuits, including Texas requirement that the mother hear the fetal heartbeat, and Oklahomas mandate that mothers be told about a potential risk of breast cancer with an abortion. It also would replicate Arizonas provision prohibiting tax deductions for abortion-related groups. Women would also have to undergo a sonogram before having an abortion. The bills sponsor is Kansas House Federal and State Affairs Committee. The Kansas City Star reports that The bill is one of four abortion-related measures pending in the Legislature.
Think Progress reports that In the escalating war on womens rights in statehouse across the country, Iowa state Rep. Kim Pearson (R) may have just dropped the biggest bomb yet. House File 2298 introduces the crime of Fetacide: Any person who intentionally terminates a human pregnancy, with the knowledge and voluntary onsent of the pregnant person, after the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy where death of the fetus results, commits feticide. Feticide is a class C A felony. Any person who attempts to intentionally terminate a human pregnancy, with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person, after the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy where death of the fetus does not result, commits attempted feticide. Attempted feticide is a class D B felony. A class A felony is punishable by life in prison, class B by 25 years. Keep in mind abortion is legal in the United States (see Roe v. Wade).
Louisiana seems intent on following the general Republican practice of taking extreme stances against abortion. Case in point: a new piece of legislation (SB 330), filed March 1, 2012 by Sen. Rick Ward III, D-Maringouin, would outlaw abortion by anyone but a licensed physician and label any abortion performed by any individual who is not a physician licensed by the state of Louisiana would be deemed a brand new crime: dismemberment (aggravated criminal abortion by dismemberment to be precise). Violators, reports Nola.com, would face a prison term of one to five years, a fine of $5,000 to $50,000 or a jail sentence and a fine. The bill defines a physician as someone who holds a medical or an osteopathic degree from a medical college in good standing with the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners and has a license, permit, certification or registration issued by the board to practice medicine in the state.
Also in Louisiana, reports Planned Parenthood, House Concurrent Resolution 54, by Rep. Frank Hoffman (West Monroe  R), aimed to encourage Congress to defund Planned Parenthood, but was tied up in Senate Finance at the close of the [2011 legislative] session which ended June 23, 2011. Hoffman claims, reports Nola.com, that that giving the organization federal funding for services such as screenings for breast and cervical cancer indirectly helps Planned Parenthood provide abortions.
A last item from Louisiana: On July 6, 2011, Gov. Bobby Jindal signed into law Rep. Frank Hoffmans HB 636. As Planned Parenthood reports: HB 636 requires Abortion providers to post coercion prevention/abortion alternative signs and gives DHH the authority to develop a new abortion alternatives website. Visitors to the website will not receive comprehensive information about pregnancy options; agencies that provide comprehensive pregnancy options education or provide abortion care will not be allowed to post information on the site.
A New York Times editorial calls into question a recent Republican brainstorm on Capitol Hill: The Judiciary Committee in the Republican-controlled House held a hearing to promote a mean-spirited and constitutionally suspect bill called the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill would create a mandatory parental notification requirement and 24-hour waiting period on women under 18 who travel outside their home state to get an abortion and punish anyone who helps the minor with criminal and civil penalties that include up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine. As the editorial points out, It is both an attack on womens rights and on the basic principles of federalism. And of course, it wont create one single job.
In what can only be seen as a punitive and hateful punishment of women who have abortions, Georgia Republican Rep. Terry England, in support of a bill which would ban abortions after 20 weeks (HR 954), says (video here) that women should be forced to carry dead fetuses to term. Why? Because cows and pigs have to do it and thats apparently how his god wants it. Never mind the health risk to mothers being forced to carry dead fetuses to term. Republicans hate mothers and want them to die early and often.
In Tennessee, in yet another attempt to shame and punish women and doctors who have the audacity to disagree with fundamentalist religious views, the Life Defense Act of 2012 (H.B. 3808) would reveal the names not only of doctors who perform abortions but would also identify women who have abortions, posting that information on the Internet. According to HuffPo, the information revealed would include the womans age, race, county, marital status, education level, number of children, the location of the procedure and how many times she has been pregnant. The legislation is sponsored by state Rep. Matthew Hill (R-Jonesboro) after it was suggested by Tennessee Right To Life. Since Republicans control both House and Senate, the bill will in all likelihood pass, despite the ruling of the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2000 that abortion is a right protected by the state constitution.
From Alaska comes HB 363, which, as Planned Parenthood tells us, forbids full disclosure of pregnancy options and referrals for abortions, in flagrant violation of requirements made by federal funding laws, further pointing out that [a]bortion is a fundamental right in Alaska, as protected by two State Supreme Court rulings in 1997 and 2001. Any law limiting access, particularly one such as HB363 that targets poor women, is an attack on our Alaskan values: individual freedom from government interference, privacy and fair treatment under the law.
In the TRAP department, Minnesota Republicans want to prove to America theyre as hateful as any GOP misogynist when, says MPR, The Senate Health and Human Services Committee [on February 27, 2012] advanced two bills that would place restrictions on clinics that provide abortions. S.F. 1912 (H.F. 2341), authored by Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, would ban doctors from administering RU486 without being present in the room (currently it can be done by webcam) on the grounds that it is deadly, yet as the StarTribune reports, Opponents countered that the death rate from medication abortions is approximately one out of every 100,000 women who take RU-486. The death rate for Viagra, by contrast, is approximately 5 for every 100,000. An attempt by Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, offered an amendment to the bill that would have put mens sexual activity under the same scrutiny as womens. Her amendment would require medical supervision when men take Viagra. The Republican dominated House voted down the amendment 95-28, showing the true punitive purpose behind the bill. Governor Mark Dayton (D) vetoed the bill, pointing out that it targets only facilities which provide abortions.
The other bill, S.F. 1921 (H.F. 2340), authored by Sen. Claire Robling, R-Jordan, would require facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed and subject to random inspections. On April 18, 2012, the bills passed the Minnesota House and Senate. yet Minnesota does not require licensing of clinics providing outpatient surgery. As MRP reminds us, Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed several abortion bills during last years legislative session. The good news is that the state legislature lacks the votes to overturn a veto. Currently, at least six states, including North Dakota and South Dakota, have bans on so-called webcam abortions.
Wisconsin Republicans are convinced that women are being coerced into having abortions and they are determined to put a stop to it. Their answer is SB 306, Voluntary and informed consent and information on domestic abuse services, authored by Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) and Rep. Michelle Litjens (R-Oshkosh). The bill also protects women from RU-486 (but not men from Viagra). SB 306 was signed into law by Gov. Scott Walker on April 6, 2012. As a result, Planned Parenthood has done exactly what Wisconsin Republicans desire and suspended non-surgical abortions in Wisconsin. The lesson is: TRAP laws work. Rose v. Wade says abortion is legal; TRAP laws make it impossible in practice.
Also in Wisconsin on April 6, 2012: Gov. Scott Walker signed into law SB 92 relating to: prohibiting coverage of 2abortions through health plans sold through exchanges. This is an anti-Obamacare bill, pure and simple, and it states This bill prohibits a qualified health plan offered through any exchange operating in this state from covering any abortion the performance of which is ineligible for funding from the state, a local government, or a long-term care district or from federal funds passing through the state treasury.
In Mississippi Republicans think they have found a way to eliminate abortion in their state without directly challenging Roe v. Wade: Having said that he plans to make his state abortion-free (the state already has only one abortion clinic), Gov. Phil Bryant signed Mississippi House Bill 1390 on April 16, 2012, which requires all physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and board certification in obstetrics and gynecology. Bryant said: I believe that all human life is precious, and as governor, I will work to ensure that the lives of the born and unborn are protected in Mississippi, Apparently, the lives of mothers arent important in Mississippi. State Rep. Adrienne Wooten (D-Jackson) told the men in the House:Now, if youre that concerned about unplanned pregnancies, go get snipped, The bill takes effect July 1, 2012.
Thats not all from Mississippi. Planned Parenthood tells us that In addition to the abortion law signed by Bryant today, on Tuesday the House passed a backdoor personhood amendment to a bill intended to protect Mississippi children. If enacted, the amended bill could outlaw birth control, infertility treatments and all abortions  no exceptions. After passing the House, Senate Bill 2771 is now in the Senate for a concurrence vote.
In Ohio, Republicans are about defund Planned Parenthood, having made certain that Gov. John Kasichs (R) mid-budget review bill contains language that prevents the organization from receiving federal funding worth $1.7 million because the funding is administered by the state Department of Health (blame and shame for the language should attach itself to Rep. Kristina Roegner of Hudson, Rep. Cliff Rosenberger of Clinton County and House Finance Chairman Rep. Ron Amstutz of Wooster). This is supposed to be a move to stop abortions but the money cant be used for abortions (and only 3 of the states 37 clinics actually provide abortion services) so in fact it is a blatant attack on Planned Parenthood itself and therefore against Ohio women. Cleveland.com reports that The budget bill is on a fast track, with majority-party GOP lawmakers expected to pass the legislation before Memorial Day.
o Arguing that it is morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to fund organizations that provide and promote abortions, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind, introduced a bill (HR 217) in the U.S. House of Representatives to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding, despite the many other services Planned Parenthood provides to both men and women, including contraception and STD testing

o Legalizing the Murder of Abortion Doctors

South Dakota flirted with a law to make the murder of an abortion doctor legal as self-defense
When South Dakota was forced to drop the idea of murdering abortion doctors, Nebraska and Iowa picked up the idea
See also HB 3308 Life Defense Act of 2012 above, which has implications in this regard.
o Abstinence Education

A total of 37 states mandate abstinence education while contraception falls increasingly under attack by Republican legislatures.

According to the Guttmacher Report, Mississippi, which had long mandated abstinence education, adopted provisions that make it more difficult for a school district to include other subjects, such as contraception, in order to offer a more comprehensive curriculum. A district will now need to get specific permission to do so from the state department of education.
According to the Guttmacher Report, A new requirement enacted in North Dakota mandates that the health education provided in the state include information on the benefits of abstinence until and within marriage.
Utah, unsurprisingly, has opted for abstinence-only sex ed, which really is kind of the antithesis of sex-ed, isnt it? But that is precisely what the state legislature has done  it has voted that the birds and the bees are X-rated and have no role in schools. If HB 363, sponsored by Rep. Bill Wright, is signed into law, schools wont be able to teach children about contraception. It is unknown if Gov. Gary Herbert will sign the bill.
The Taliban has taken over Tennessee. From ThinkProgress: Senate passed SB 3310 (HB 3621), a bill to update the states abstinence-based sex education curriculum to define holding hands and kissing as gateway sexual activities. Just one senator voted against the legislation; 28 voted in favor. This is Tennessees answer to increased Teenage pregnancy: not promotion of contraception; just dont hold hands. Welcome to Afghanistan, Tennessee. The law takes effect July 1, 2012, otherwise and henceforth and forever known as Talibanesseee Day.
o Personhood Laws and Fetal Rights and Mandatory Ultrasounds

In 2011 the trend in anti-abortion legislation was passage of laws that would give fertilized eggs the rights of personhood  in other words, fertilized eggs would have the same rights as you or me  a blatant ploy to attack womens reproductive rights. Florida, Montana and Ohio will have personhood on the ballot in 2012 and according to CNN efforts in at least five other states are in the planning stages. Mississippi has just rejected one such extremist measure and Colorado and South Dakota have also rejected them. Robin Marty at RH Reality Check examines 20-week bans and points to the flaw at the heart of this type of legislation. In 2012, mandatory ultrasounds have become the rage. However, Republican legislators seem to be realizing that voters arent exactly jumping on the bandwagon.

In Iowa a pregnant woman was arrested for falling down a flight of stairs. Yes, for falling down a flight of stairs. You see, following a fight on the phone with her husband, Christine Taylor fell down a flight of. Like any responsible pregnant woman would, she went to the hospital to check on the fetus  and was arrested thanks to one of the many state laws that grant fetuses rights separate from the mother. Iowa has a feticide law that pertains to the second trimester and beyond, and since Taylor confessed that she had contemplated abortion but had chosen to have the baby, the nurse and doctor at the hospital decided to phone the police and accuse her of trying to terminate her pregnancy illegally. She was fortunate not to be charged with a crime  for falling down the stairs.
Nebraska banned abortions after 20 weeks on the unscientific grounds that fetuses feel pain at that gestational age. Shortly thereafter, Danielle Deaver discovered at 22 weeks she had a pregnancy that could not result in a living baby. Yet Nebraska law denied her an abortion. Nebraska is not alone, and Deaver will not be alone. Legislators in 12 other states  Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Mexico and Oregon  are considering similar laws. But banning abortion could not save Deavers fetus: With undeveloped lungs, the baby likely would never survive outside the womb, and because all the amniotic fluid had drained, the tiny growing fetus slowly would be crushed by the uterus walls. On Dec. 8, Deaver delivered 1-pound, 10-ounce Elizabeth, who, as doctors had predicted, lived for only 15 minutes outside the womb.
Idaho is the latest state, inspired by Nebraskas example, to put such a law on the books. Senate Bill 1165 bans abortion after 20 weeks but leaves no loophole even for cases of rape. Their justification? The bills House sponsor, state Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, told legislators that the hand of the Almighty was at work. His ways are higher than our ways, Crane said. He has the ability to take difficult, tragic, horrific circumstances and then turn them into wonderful examples. And Rep. Shannon McMillan, R-Silverton says, Is not the child of that rape or incest also a victim? asked It didnt ask to be here. It was here under violent circumstances perhaps, but that was through no fault of its own.[...]
On February 11, 2011, the North Dakota House of Representatives passed House Bill 1450; a bill which seeking to define a fertilized egg as a human being. As Planned Parenthood reports, HB 1450 is backed by a national activist group, Personhood USA, working to make North Dakota the epicenter of a heated national debate.
The Oklahoma House of Representatives voted 94 to 2 to a ban on abortions later than 20 weeks of gestation similar to Nebraskas in what it called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Bill 1888 was signed into law in April 2011 by Republican governor Mary Fallin, who signed every anti-abortion bill that came to her desk in 2011. Oklahoma became the third state to restrict abortions on the basis of fetal pain (joining Kansas and Nebraska) reported the Oklahoman at the time.
A personhood bill in Louisiana sponsored by Republican State Rep. John LaBruzzo that would have banned all abortions in the state was defeated when a House vote sent it to the House Appropriations Committee, which shelved the measure. This is not the end, however, as this fall a referendum on a personhood amendment.
Ohio has joined the personhood amendment sweepstakes. Personhood Ohio is gathering signatures to add an abortion ban to the states constitution in 2012, defining as a person even fertilization of an egg. Even a fertilized egg apparently as inalienable rights. The measure would not only ban abortion, but contraception. Personhood Ohio hasnt announced any plans to see to the caring of all the resultant births.
In Virginia, State Del. C Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock) described abortion as nothing more than a lifestyle convenience for women during a debate in support of a bill (SB 484) that would require women to receive trans-vaginal ultrasounds before obtaining an abortion. The patient will be shown not only an image of the fetus but the audio of its heartbeat. The Virginia House of Delegates passed the bill, making Virginia the seventh state to require such ultrasounds. Texas and Iowa are also considering such measures. A recent development is the sudden oppositionby Governor Bob McDonnell to the trans-vaginal ultrasound provision. The bill now mandates external ultrasound. The bill will now go back to the Senate.
In Arizona, Republican social conservatism has reached new heights in the punish women for even thinking about it frenzy. This bill almost requires its own category. State Rep. Terri Proud (R-Tucson), in an email to Arizona legislators, said that wants women to be forced to watch an abortion before having one. Personally Id like to make a law that mandates a woman watch an abortion being performed prior to having a surgical procedure. If its not a life it shouldnt matter, if it doesnt harm a woman then she shouldnt care, and dont we want more transparency and education in the medical profession anyway? We demand it everywhere else. Until the dead child can tell me that she/he does not feel any pain  I have no intentions of clearing the conscience of the living  I will be voting YES.
Of great interest to most liberals are the way in which many anti-abortion bills target victims of rape and incest. This is bad enough, but an Idaho Republican has taken things to a whole new level: Senator Chuck Winder (R-Boise), sponsor of S. 1387, which would force mandatory ultrasounds on women seeking abortion, which passed the Idaho senate, wants to be certain women were really, really raped. From the Spokesman Review: In his closing debate in favor of SB 1387, Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Boise, said, This bill does not require a trans-vaginal exam.  It leaves that up to the patient and the physician to make that determination. He said, Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this. I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume thats part of the counseling that goes on. In other words, we have to assume they are lying.
For Washington D.C. the GOP has the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, or H.R. 3803, introduced in the House on January 23, 2012, by Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az.) It was introduced in the Senate on February 13 by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), as S. 2103. This legislation would ban abortion after 20 weeks on the basis of fetal pain and as National Right to Life News Today admits without appropriate shame, is based on an NRLC model bill that has already been enacted in five statesNebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama. Nothing like exporting Bible Belt religious extremism to the innocent citizens of the nations capital.
In Nebraska, the Republican Party attempted to put limits on personhood after birth and struggled with their pro-life stance on the one hand and hatred of immigrants on the other  LB599 reports the Journal Democrat, will provide prenatal medical assistance for women not covered under Medicaid, including illegal immigrants and women in prison. According to the bills fiscal note, 1,162 unborn babies will be covered annually. Republican Gov. Dave Heineman vetoed the bill. In a letter explaining his veto, Gov. Dave Heineman said he opposed the bill because it gave taxpayers benefits to illegal immigrants. Heineman said it was misguided, misplaced and inappropriate.But the legislature overrode his veto and Mike Flood (R), speaker of the chamber (and abortion opponent) pointed out that the babies will be U.S. citizens and said, If Im going to stand up in the Legislature and protect babies at 20 weeks from abortion, and hordes of senators and citizens are going to stand behind me, and thats pro-life, then Im going to be pro-life when its tough, too.
O Oklahoma: an Oklahoma House committee (Republican, of course) has passed a personhood bill (of course), SB-1433, introduced on January 18, 2012. The bill, co-authored by Rep. Lisa Billy (R-Lindsay) would grant personhood status to human embryos, asserting: The life of each human being begins at conception and that unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being. On April 19, 2012, Speaker Kris Steeles office announced that the bill will not come up for a vote. According to Sarah Morice-Brubaker at ReligionDispatches, SB 1433 died under the weight of amendments even pro-lifers couldnt live with. According to the speakers office, Oklahoma has already passed at least 30 various pro-life measures in the past eight years alone.
Tennessee Republicans also want to criminalize miscarriages: the state House of Representatives has approved on a vote of 80-18, a bill (House Bill 3517) that would allow homicide and assault charges to be filed in case of the death of an embryo to the first eight weeks of pregnancy. This is problematic. As the Tennessean reports: According to the National Institutes of Health, roughly half of all fertilized eggs die before reaching full term, with the rate highest during the embryonic stage. As a result, it will be difficult for prosecutors to prove that an embryo miscarried because of someone elses action and not from natural causes, predicted Rep. Jeanne Richardson, D-Memphis. In other words, if a woman miscarried or even had a period, she could be prosecuted.
In Mississippi, a ballot initiative, Measure 26 (The Personhood Amendment), would have, if passed (it fortunately did not) defined zygotes, embryoseven a fertilized eggas a person. Women would have been unable to have an abortion even in the case of rape or incest  even if her life is in danger, and IUDs, birth control pills and other forms of contraception would have become illegal. Update: Mississippi tried it again: House Concurrent Resolution 61 aka The Right to Life Amendment of 2012, (HC 61) would provide that the right to life is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; to provide that the world person applies to all human beings from conception to natural death. TPM reports that the bill was co-authored by three Republicans and one Democrat. Fortunately, this bill died in committee on March 6, 2012; for the time being, womens reproductive rights will enjoy a reprieve in Mississippi.
In California, conservatives are peddling the California Human Rights Amendment. It is okay to condemn people after theyre born but you must let them be born first. This latest personhood gimmick claims the inherent human rights, dignity and worth of all human beings from the beginning of their biological development as human beings but its real goal is to make abortion illegal  even in cases of rape or incest (regardless of the means by which they were procreated), or fetal anomaly. In other words, taking away womens reproductive rights is a promotion of human rights.
In the U.S. House of Representatives, the Sanctity of Human Life Act (HR 212) proposed by Rep. Paul Brouns (R-Ga.) includes reports Mother Jones, language that directly parallels that of the Mississippi personhood amendment. According to HR 212, the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalentat which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.
In Florida, Personhood Florida, with support from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC), is moving forward with a petition to put a personhood amendment on the 2014 general election ballot.
In Oklahoma, eggs are about to become people. The bill (HJR- 1067) introduced on January 12, 2012, bears a resemblance to the recently rejected Mississippi law (see Measure 26 above, this category). Republican Rep. Mike Reynolds, the author of the bill, says it wont apply to miscarriages or to cases where the mothers life is threatened, but no exceptions are made for rape or incest (though he claims there are), and it would ban birth control and in vitro that kills a person. If approved by the legislature, the bill will appear on the ballot in November. The legislature convenes on February 6. Oklahoma requires only a simple majority in both House and Senate. Update: The Oklahoma Supreme Court has said Oh no you dont by ruling that the proposed amendment violates a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision and is clearly unconstitutional.
In Virginia, a bill to establish Personhood (HB-1) was introduced on January 18, 2012 stating that The life of each human being begins at conception. Introduced by Robert Marshall (R-Prince William), a Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates, HB-1 is also based on Mississippis failed Measure 26. The bill passed out of committee on February 10 and went to the House for a vote on February 14, 2012 passing on a vote of 66 to 32.
In Wisconsin, AJR-77, which would legally define personhood from the moment of fertilization and outlaw all abortion in Wisconsin, was introduced on November 16, 2011. Its chief sponsor is Republican Andre Jacque. A Planned Parenthood press release dated January 26 states: AJR 77 a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw abortion, IVF services, stem cell research, and birth control which was so extreme it failed to pass in the most conservative state in the nation- Mississippi. 
Kansas has also gotten into the Personhood Act by way of HCR5029, which states that, the state of Kansas shall hereby guarantee the inalienable rights, equal protection and due process of law of every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being, including fertilization. The bill was introduced by 25 state House members. Including one Democrat. The bill requires a two-third majority vote in both House and Senate to appear on the ballot in August.
In Alabama, State Sen. Phil Williams (R-Madison) pre-filed a personhood bill for the Feb. 2012 legislative back in December of 2011. SB-5, yet another bill taking after Mississippis Measure 26, would define humans as persons from the moment of fertilization and implantation into the womb.
In Pennsylvania, The Womens Right to Know Act House Bill 1077, which was authored by state Rep. Kathy Rapp (R), is being called even more restrictive than Virginias transvaginal ultrasound bill. Raw Story reports: The bill faces a vote in the full Pennsylvania state house in mid-March, when the legislature is back in session. A petition at SignOn.org has collected nearly 15,000 signatures opposing the legislation. In keeping with the Republican practice of trying to slip legislation past the public, no public hearing was held. The bill does offer exceptions for victims of rape and incest.
Utah was all set to jump on board the vaginal ultrasound bandwagon but as the Spokesman reports, Idaho Senate Assistant Majority Leader Chuck Winder, R-Meridian, said the original version of his [mandatory ultrasound] bill specifically mentioned that procedure, but he removed it. It didnt require it, but in my opinion it was confusing  so we took it out, Winder said. However, the Idaho Statesman reports: But Sara Kiesler, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, said the measure would still require transvaginal exams, though the explicit reference to the procedure has been excised. The revised draft will leave it up to the patient and doctor whether to employ an abdominal or transvaginal sonogram to the patient and her provider. Says Winder: Thatll be up to the physician and the patient as to what they want to do, admitting the invasive procedure went too far.
In Alabama, Republican Clay Scofield (R-Huntsville) has introduced a mandatory ultrasound proposal for women seeking abortions. According to the Montgomery Advertiser: Physicians who failed to administer the ultrasound prior to an abortion or an attempted abortion could face up to 10 years in prison and a $15,000 fine. In addition, the law would allow the woman, the father of the fetus or the grandparents to sue the physician for actual and punitive damages. Scofield stated that the whole point of the procedure was to make the woman uncomfortable, essentially, to punish her for her decision to have an abortion. The unsurprising backlash over his words has caused him, publically, at least, to rethink his position: I want to offer legislation that will simultaneously protect life and show respect and compassion towards women. Given his lie that the ultrasound would not be a vaginal probe, his words should be taken with a grain of salt. The Alabama bill allows no exceptions in case of rape or incest.
Alaska has joined the state-sponsored rape lollapalooza with its SB 191, which as Planned Parenthood points out, mandates that the physician perform an ultrasound regardless of its medical necessity prior to performing an abortioneven though the Alaska Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that Alaska laws may not place unnecessary burdens on a womans right to an abortion.
o War on Birth Control/Contraception

Republicans have tried to define contraception not as a health but as a religious issue, claiming that the availability of contraception is a violation of their religious beliefs.

The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives is attacking the Department of Health and Human Services new guidelines that require insurance companies to cover contraceptive services free of charge. Committee Chairman Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) claims the new rules do not protect religious groups who object to contraception. He claims the government is taking, coercive actions to force people to abandon their religious principles. As part of the Republican War on Women, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) has introduced a bill, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011, which would allow providers to throw women under the bus on religious grounds.
In Utah, 45 Republicans voted for state Rep. Bill Wrights (R) HB363 which, as Raw Story reports, would effectively ban comprehensive education about human sexuality, forcing schools to teach abstinence or nothing at all. Eleven Republicans and 17 Democrats opposed the bill, in defense of which Wright stated, Weve been culturally watered down to think we have to teach about sex, about having sex and how to get away with it, which is intellectually dishonest. Why dont we just be honest with them upfront that sex outside marriage is devastating?
From Arizona comes the Tell Your Boss Why Youre on he Pill Bill. House Bill 2625 authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, reports StatePress.com, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment. Lesko says this is about freedom of religion  the GOPs so-called rights of conscience  but its really about Lesko legislating not only his misogyny but his religious views, mandating that the rest of us set aside our own beliefs and abide by his instead.
In late February, seven states (Nebraska, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas) went to court over the Obama administrations birth control mandate and asked a federal judge to block it, telling the U.S. District Court of Nebraska that the rule violates the First Amendment Rights of those who, for religious reasons, object to the use of contraceptives. Nebraska attorney general Jon Bruning (of course hes a Republican!) said, We will not stand idly by while out constitutionally guaranteed liberties are discarded by an administration that has sworn to uphold them. Apparently, their right to oppose contraceptive use trumps our right to use it  what about our First Amendment rights? Not to be outdone, Alabama joined up with this unholy cause, Attorney General Luther Strange filed a motion March 22, 2012 to join that federal lawsuit.
o Taxing Abortions

The newest rage, direct from 13th Century Kansas, seeks to squeeze profit from abortions by taxing them.

In Kansas, H.B. 2598 would levy a sales tax of 6.5% on all abortion procedures, reports RawStory: Why not slap a $100, $200, $300 tax on an abortion? Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, the largest anti-abortion advocacy group in Kansas, asked Raw Story on Friday. Im completely against most forms of taxation, but abortion is such an abhorrent procedure, I would like to see it wiped out with a $2,000 or $3,000 tax on every abortion that happens in Kansas. HB 2598, punitive in nature like all GOP anti-choice legislation, would give doctors immunity from malpractice, do away with tax credits, and like Indianas law, force doctors to lie to patients about non-existent risks of breast cancer. It would also force women to listen to the heartbeat of the fetus before undergoing an abortion. RawStory underscores the financial burdeon created by this monstrous (68 page) bill, saying that it could also make late term abortions to save the life of a mother, which can run up to $20,000, wholly cost prohibitive, even for middle class women. This would effectively make this bill a kill the mother bill, a theme that runs through much of the GOPs anti-choice legislation. Rick Perry crony Governor Brownback plans to sign the bill into law if passed.
The War on Human Fetuses in Food

Yes, you read that correctly. And no, there are no human fetuses in food. But that doesnt mean we shouldnt have laws against them being there  if youre a Republican, that is. The Associated Press reports that Oklahoma State Senator Ralph Shortey, infamous for authoring failed bills, has proposed a bill that would ban the use of aborted human fetuses in food, despite conceding that hes unaware of any company using such a practice, and even Republican Sen. Brian Crain, a self-professed pro-lifer and the chairman of the Senate Human Services Committee says, Id hate to think were going to spend our time coming up with possibilities of things we need to stop. The FDA, of course, says it is not aware of this particular concern. Ridiculous as it sounds, the bill does also outlaw stem cell research.

The War on the Girl Scouts

This war is unsurprising when you consider its McCarthyian antecedents. The Republican-Christian authoritarian mindset does not like empowering women and it is absolutely horrified by the idea that impressionable young girls should get uppity notions which can only turn them into anti-religion, baby-killing feminazis. A 1955 article in The Atlantic, speaking of the effect these 1954 attacks had on the organization puts it this way: Have the Girl Scouts themselves changed? Have they altered their basic ideas about international friendship and the United Nations?

Nothing of the sort. The Girl Scouts of America was and is a fine organization which still encourages idealism, good citizenship, and international friendship. What happened in 1954 was that the Girl Scouts in the forty-second year of their existence decided it was no longer safe to say so too plainly.

From Indiana: While not taking the form of actual legislation, the actions of Rep. Bob Morris (R-Fort Wayne), who became opposed to the idea of honoring the Girl Scouts because of something he read on the Internet, were hateful. He refused to honor the Girl Scouts because, he as he told fellow lawmakers, they  promote homosexual lifestyles and study feminists, lesbians, or Communists as role models while ignoring those with a religious background. And on the basis of some very poor research he warned against extend[ing] legitimacy to a radicalized organization. Raw Story reports [5.1.12] that An Indiana lawmaker has only received a single donation in the months since he accused the Girl Scouts of becoming a radicalized organization that promotes the homosexual lifestyle.
From Alaska: Also taking up this cry was Rep. Wess Keller of Wasilla, who seems to prove the old Biblical cry, Can anything good come out of Wasilla? Keller, like Morris, was predisposed to dislike the Girl Scouts and for the same reasons. It was not difficult for him to also find affirmation of his prejudices so he pulled a Morris and blocked what should have been a routine resolution in the state legislature to honor the Girl Scouts 100th anniversary, saying in an admission of ignorance, Im sure you are aware of the information thats floating around the internet, and Id like to give you the opportunity to respond to your connection, the Girl Scout connection, with Planned Parenthood and the activist role in that  is there a connection? Is there not? Frankly, I havent looked into it but I see its out there.
The War on Divorce

o From Wisconsin comes Rep. Don Pridemore is co-sponsor of Senator Glenn Grothmans (R-West Bend) bill (SB 507) that would list nonmarital parenthood as a cause of abuse. The bill states In promoting those campaigns and materials, the [Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board] shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect. The bill is bad enough  TodaysTMJ4 tells us that Senator Grothman claims theres an epidemic of single parenthood, and hes pointing a finger at women for it. But whats worse is Pridemores defense of it; he says that women in abusive relationships  the reason so many of them are single parents in the first place  ought to just take a beating and stay married: If they can refind those reasons and get back to why they got married in the first place it might help,

The War on Church and State

o Americans United for Separation of Church and State (au.org) reveals that officials in May Minette, Ala., have crossed a constitutional line by creating a program that allows low-level offenders to choose between fines and jail or going to church for a year. 56 churches have agreed to take part in the program, which is being called Operation Restore Our Community.

o Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, is responsible for sponsoring legislation to reaffirm that In God We Trust is our national motto, claiming As our nation faces challenging times, it is appropriate for Members of Congress and our nationlike our predecessorsto firmly declare our trust in God, believing that it will sustain us for generations to come. The bill passed 396-9. Zero jobs were created by this incredible and unconstitutional waste of time. The Senate had already wastefully reaffirmed the motto in 2006.

o The South Dakota legislature is promoting biblical instruction in public schools, passing a nonbinding resolution by


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> He released 2 years, I believe, of his tax returns. He would not release more. They are on the internet.


I had to go back and read her claim about Romney's charitable release of info to understand what you are talking about.

NJG lied about that topic as well.

Besides, why is she now talking about Romney? He lost his run for the WH and has said he won't run again. What is her problem beside lying about everything she discusses about anyone not a Dem?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Me, too, I guess.


High five, my Sisters!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

What a difference in how democrats and republicans handle a law that they do not approve of. Hey republicans do you suppose Bush broke the law when, without Congressional authorization he required insurers to provide the emergency prescription coverage regardless if they had proof of coverage or not? Oh my goodness, and no state sued the Bush Administration. OMG, how could that happen. Oh, but hey they were democrats, they don't treat people that way. That explains everything. Does the word HYPOCRITE come to mind? You knew it was coming.

Conservatives are suffering from a particularly acute case of selective amnesia this week. Just eight years ago this week, the calamitous launch of President Bush's Medicare prescription drug program left over six million previously insured seniors without coverage. Hundreds of thousands more could not get their medications as problem-plagued government computer systems, confused insurers, and under-trained pharmacists left subscribers panicked and helpless. But unlike today's sabotage of the Affordable Care Act by Republicans in Congress and in the states, Democrats at all levels helped the Medicare Rx program whose design they opposed.

Roughly 6.4 million seniors who just days earlier had gotten their prescriptions for free as Medicare/Medicaid "dual eligibles" faced the prospect of going without because of untrained pharmacists and computer glitches. By January 16, 2006, the New York Times reported, many states (most of them led by Democrats) came to their rescue.

About 20 states, including California, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and all of New England, have announced that they will help low-income people by paying drug claims that should have been paid by the federal Medicare program.

Among the governors taking action were future Obamacare foes Tim Pawlenty and Mike Huckabee, who declared a health emergency in his state of Arkansas. The fiasco prompted the Bush administration to take drastic measures.

With tens of thousands of people unable to get medicines promised by Medicare, the Bush administration has told insurers that they must provide a 30-day supply of any drug that a beneficiary was previously taking, and it said that poor people must not be charged more than $5 for a covered drug.

It's no wonder why Paul Krugman summed up the whole catastrophe as "D for Debacle."

But it didn't remain a debacle for long. Days before Bush ordered insurers to "aid the ailing Medicare drug plan," Walgreens, CVS, and other national drugstore chains then as now announced they would fill prescriptions for customers unable to provide proof of their new coverage. (It is worth noting that no state sued the Bush administration for acting without Congressional authorization when it required insurers to provide the emergency prescription coverage described above.) But despite the fact that even Republicans like John Boehner and Tim Pawlenty admitted President Bush's rollout of Medicare Part D was "horrendous" and "awful," Democrats did everything they could to save it. As then-Senator Hillary Clinton described the effort to salvage a program she and most Democrats opposed as an unnecessarily expensive giveaway to private insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms:

"I voted against it, but once it passed I certainly determined that I would try to do everything I could to make sure that New Yorkers understood it, could access it, and make the best of it."

Wisconsin Senator Kohl, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Aging asked his colleagues "to put aside any partisan thoughts to work together to get this program running." They did. The result? The Medicare drug benefit that was even more unpopular than Obamacare now enjoys 90 percent support among America's seniors.

Republicans and their conservative amen corner appear to have forgotten that history


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You can compare both tax returns: Both have the same type of foreign investments. Romney just has more money.
> 
> Romney's 2011 tax Return.
> 
> ...


And what does this prove other than that Romney has more money and he didn't provide 12 years of returns like Obama did. Something to hide I guess. Oh by the way, I never looked at the returns. No need to, they show nothing.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> And what does this prove other than that Romney has more money and he didn't provide 12 years of returns like Obama did. Something to hide I guess. Oh by the way, I never looked at the returns. No need to, they show nothing.


I did take a peek, you are correct, it does pretty much just show that the 1/10 of 1%er had almost as much income in tax avoidance funds in 2011 as President Obama had in income in 2008. 
It really doesn't matter, it wasn't his income and holdings that kept him from the office of POTUS, it was his arrogance and attitude. 
I just thank God that despite the best efforts and all the riches poored into the conservative coffers the American people could see who should be in the Oval Office.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Another Obamacare horror story proved wrong. 

Yesterday I posted about a Fort Worth Star Telegram article that leads with the tale of Whitney Johnson, a 26-year-old new mother who suffers from multiple sclerosis (MS). Her insurer just cancelled her policy, and according to Johnson, new insurance would cost her over $1,000 a month.

The good news is that the thing that makes it a horror story isn't that Whitney Johnson lost her insurance and can't afford new coverage, because it turns out Johnson actually was able to purchase coverage for $350 a monthnot the $1,000 she initially had told the newspaper.

What makes it a horror story is that when the Star Telegram learned that Johnson actually was able to get coverage, they did nothing to change their original report, even though it was at best incomplete. As Maggie Mahar, who wrote the post linked above, puts it:

This major dailys nearly 200,000 daily readers saw the story that would lead them to believe that Americans who received cancellation notices were left in limbo. Most, it concluded, would wind up uninsured  or paying more than they could afford. As Ive pointed out many times  and as more and more coverage is revealing  the opposite is true.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Another Obamacare horror story proved wrong.
> 
> Yesterday I posted about a Fort Worth Star Telegram article that leads with the tale of Whitney Johnson, a 26-year-old new mother who suffers from multiple sclerosis (MS). Her insurer just cancelled her policy, and according to Johnson, new insurance would cost her over $1,000 a month.
> 
> ...


That darned liberal media at work again...


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Everry time I turn around I read another story of republican hypocrisy.

Idaho is now among several states challenging how President Obama decided to let consumers keep their insurance plans this year even if those plans don't meet requirements set by the 2010 health care reform law.

Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden and 10 other attorneys general called the proposed rule "flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law," in a letter last week [pdf] to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

So at the same time Republicans are raising hell over cancelled health insurance policies, they're raising hell over the administration's fix for cancelled insurance policies. Perfect Republican logic. Hypocrisy

Just like the democrats during the part D debacle, right? Oh no wrong, the democrats worked with the Bush Administration. They didn't try to hurt the American people.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Everry time I turn around I read another story of republican hypocrisy.
> 
> Idaho is now among several states challenging how President Obama decided to let consumers keep their insurance plans this year even if those plans don't meet requirements set by the 2010 health care reform law.
> 
> ...


I have to say I am not all that happy about his "fix" myself. He did it, it's done. 
I would prefer an expansion of subsidies, that's just me.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

alcameron said:


> Oh, please! Do you think raising the minimum wage is going to make the poor rich enough to become republicans??. Good grief!


Why is there is mistaken impression that all Democrats are poor? I don't get that. There are plenty of rich democrats, I personally have known many well to do democrats (not rich, but still very well off). I think that it may be an attempt to try to get more people in the republican group. Kind of like what happens in certain areas when living in a "city" is for poor people idea, so people who want to seem like they have money move to more expensive areas.

What do you think?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You stated I say things I do not have positive proof of. So when I do provide the proof, you refuse to look, so who is the H*?


I saw those tax papers back during the campaign. Why should I look at them again. Have they changed? If you had 12 years of honest tax returns I would look at them. Oh, that 's right. He wouldn't let us look at those other ones. They are a secret. Sorry, but you are still the hypocrite.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Why is there is mistaken impression that all Democrats are poor? I don't get that. There are plenty of rich democrats, I personally have known many well to do democrats (not rich, but still very well off). I think that it may be an attempt to try to get more people in the republican group. Kind of like what happens in certain areas when living in a "city" is for poor people idea, so people who want to seem like they have money move to more expensive areas.
> 
> What do you think?


I think you are right on, and those kind of things, like where you live, how you dress, etc.are very important to the republicans, more impressed with how things look to the outside world, than how things really are.


----------



## sjrNC (Jul 30, 2012)

Baxter international is still around and doing very well. They have spun off allegiance healthcare which is now cardinal healthcare, Caremark which merged with Cvs, Edwards life Science and carefusion. 

The healthcare plan they offer employees is great, also supplying these same benefits to retirees and surviving spouses. 

My knowledge of baxter goes back over 30 years and I don't ever recall Bain capital being involved. 

I do see were some investors from bain did buy the Dade company which I see was a division of Baxter, which they decided to sell and turned it into largest supplier of some medical device and have since sold it to Seimens.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Why is there is mistaken impression that all Democrats are poor? I don't get that. There are plenty of rich democrats, I personally have known many well to do democrats (not rich, but still very well off). I think that it may be an attempt to try to get more people in the republican group. Kind of like what happens in certain areas when living in a "city" is for poor people idea, so people who want to seem like they have money move to more expensive areas.
> 
> What do you think?


I don't think it is a mistaken impression, LKholcomb, it is propaganda. It goes in line with the rest of the lies about Dems being socialists/communists. The lie that we are jealous of those with money, the fallacy that we want to redistribute the wealth.That false supposition that those who do not work don't want to. 
To keed it really current that people collecting unemployment are not job seekers, are lazy... stupid, prejudicial and anti-American talk.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Well it looks like 6 republicans have voted to move the bill along to extend jobless benefits, So, is it because they really believe they should be extended, or is it because they are concerned about how it looks to their constituents? Also are they voting to move the bill along for discussion, just to impress their constituents, and then when it comes down to a final vote, where are they? I just see this hypocrisy thing hanging over their heads. Have to wait and see.
Some of the republicans keep saying there has to be off-sets before they will vote yes. When there was a vote for Part D without off-sets, they voted yes. For the war in Iraq without off-sets, they voted yes. Hypocrites is the word that comes to mind.


----------



## sjrNC (Jul 30, 2012)

When these companies were spun off. Baxter stock holders were given shares in the new companies. Several of these companies have had stock splits since being spun off. 

My personal experience with two of these companies was excellent. Their healthcare plans were/are great.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I wonder why someone is saying Bain and Romney were involved in it. Cause trouble, maybe?


Because she lies and is willing to say anything no matter how absurd to suggest those who have means or are Republicans are evil, have no compassion and are "out to get" Obama and every Democrat on the face of the earth proving only her own foolishness.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

sjrNC said:


> When these companies were spun off. Baxter stock holders were given shares in the new companies. Several of these companies have had stock splits since being spun off.
> 
> My personal experience with two of these companies was excellent. Their healthcare plans were/are great.


 :thumbup: Bain is a venture capital and asset mgmt company, not a company that takes down successful businesses as NJG described. Pay her no heed.

I'm thrilled to hear of your good rewards.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

sjrNC said:


> Baxter international is still around and doing very well. They have spun off allegiance healthcare which is now cardinal healthcare, Caremark which merged with Cvs, Edwards life Science and carefusion.
> 
> The healthcare plan they offer employees is great, also supplying these same benefits to retirees and surviving spouses.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I should have said they bought bought Baxter's diagnostics unit in the latter part of 1994. The Dade International you mentioned was a company created by Bain Capital and they bought the diagnostics unit.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:



> Why is there is mistaken impression that all Democrats are poor? I don't get that. There are plenty of rich democrats, I personally have known many well to do democrats (not rich, but still very well off). I think that it may be an attempt to try to get more people in the republican group. Kind of like what happens in certain areas when living in a "city" is for poor people idea, so people who want to seem like they have money move to more expensive areas.
> 
> What do you think?


I think that the Republican Party tends to put the needs of wealthier Americans and big business over the needs of the "common man" and that there are a ton of people out there who vote against their best interests when they vote for republican candidates (generally). I also think they (repubs) have very little social conscience and a twisted view of the purpose of government. (Generally)


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

NJG said:


> Everry time I turn around I read another story of republican hypocrisy.
> 
> Idaho is now among several states challenging how President Obama decided to let consumers keep their insurance plans this year even if those plans don't meet requirements set by the 2010 health care reform law.
> 
> ...


When an elected official, i.e., the President, bypasses the constitutionally mandated way of making changes to a law, the USA becomes the same type of government as one ruled by a tin pot dictator. You can bet that you haven't heard the end of Obama's changes and his flaunting of law. These changes will be the reason for a lawsuit and a Supreme Court challenge. It just couldn't happen until the law was in effect (Jan 2014). The next step is identifying someone with standing to sue. It's coming.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I looked up both companies you mentioned. Nothing about Bain Capital was mentioned in either one. Where did you get your information?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dade_Behring
> 
> ...


Dades owner, the giant health care company Baxter International, was ready to dump its aging diagnostic division.

The idea was tantalizing: raise money from a pool of investors, like wealthy families and public pensions; buy a struggling company using a small amount of cash and a lot of financed debt; improve its operations; and then sell it for a profit.

As Bain Capital expanded, Mr. Romney cut back his travel to the headquarters of companies, assigning to lower-level executives the task of scouring balance sheets and interviewing managers. But he reviewed the numbers and signed off on major acquisitions, like the Dade purchase.

In the waning days of 1994, a small group of investors led by Bain Capital, including Goldman Sachs, paid $450 million for Dade. Bain invested about $30 million.

In 1995, Bain officials debated whether Dade should buy a competitor, a diagnostics division of DuPont Medical Products that owned technology vital to Dades future. Some Bain executives advocated quickly selling off Dade for a tidy profit. Others counseled patience, arguing that Bain could collect even more by investing in the company for a few years.

In back-to-back acquisitions, Dade bought the DuPont diagnostics division in 1996 and a German medical testing company, Behring, in 1997, whose products replaced or improved upon Dades. It was renamed Dade Behring.

Cost-cutting became a mantra inside the company. After his employer, DuPont, was bought by Dade, William T. Mowrey, a field engineer, said his generous pension plan was replaced by a 401(k); his salary was cut by $1 an hour, costing him $2,000 a year in income. When he filed for overtime, he said, his new bosses refused to pay it. They were just trying to milk as much out of us as they could, he said.

At Bain Capitals direction, Dade quadrupled the money it owed creditors and vendors. It took steps that propelled the business toward bankruptcy. And in waves of layoffs, it cut loose 1,700 workers in the United States, including Brian and Christine Shoemaker, who lost their jobs at a plant in Westwood, Mass.

Mr. Mowrey, now 54, quit. Many workers, like Mr. Shoemaker, the Dade employee in Westwood, and his wife, a temporary employee at the same plant, did not leave on their own terms. When they lost their jobs in 1997, they had to abandon plans to buy their first home together. It created a lot of stress, said Mr. Shoemaker, 59, who had earned more than $80,000 a year.

For some, the emotional effects of the layoffs outweighed the financial repercussions. Soon after Dade bought the DuPont unit, it closed a plant in Puerto Rico; all but a few of its nearly 300 workers were laid of

Cindy Hewitt, a human resources manager, had been instructed to persuade about a dozen of Mr. Rosados co-workers to move to Miami, where Dade had another plant.

Not long after the workers arrived, the company said it would close that factory, too. Ms. Hewitt tried to help several workers return to Puerto Rico, but she said Dade insisted that they first repay thousands of dollars of moving costs. They were treated horribly, she said. There was absolutely no concern for the employees. It was truly and completely profit-focused.

Executives involved in the decisions said that to make Dade a success, they had combined companies in need of overhaul. And the mergers created redundant work forces that had to be winnowed.

By 1998, Mr. Romney and his restless colleagues at Bain began looking for a way to cash out of the firms investment in Dade.

Bain settled on a common tactic in private equity: In April 1999, it pushed Dade to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to buy half of Bains shares in the company  and half of those of its investment partners.

The strategy of sharply increasing Dades debt alarmed several executives. Mr. Garrett, the former chief executive of Dade who stood to gain from the transaction, said he had argued unsuccessfully against it.

With the amount of money that Dade owed to creditors and vendors at nearly $2 billion, some executives worried that the company would have little maneuvering room if its financial situation suddenly deteriorated.

Creditors, unsettled by deteriorating finances and high debts, began to pounce. More layoffs followed. And in August of 2002, Dade filed for bankruptcy protection.

The creditors threatened litigation against Bain and its investment partners, accusing them of professional negligence and unjust enrichment, according to bankruptcy documents. Bain and the other investors argued that the claims were baseless, but agreed to forgo about $68 million owed to them by Dade. And seven years after buying the company, Bain forfeited its remaining ownership stake. Mr. Romneys firm collected $242 million, a return eight times its investment.

I think this last paragraph says it all. Yes Dade survived after Bain was gone and after bankruptcy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/us/politics/after-mitt-romney-deal-company-showed-profits-and-then-layoffs.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I do believe your original statement was in error.


And did I correct that to your satisfaction?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> When an elected official, i.e., the President, bypasses the constitutionally mandated way of making changes to a law, the USA becomes the same type of government as one ruled by a tin pot dictator. You can bet that you haven't heard the end of Obama's changes and his flaunting of law. These changes will be the reason for a lawsuit and a Supreme Court challenge. It just couldn't happen until the law was in effect (Jan 2014). The next step is identifying someone with standing to sue. It's coming.


So when Bush did the same thing with Part D, was he also breaking the law. Did anyone sue the Bush Administration or did they think it was more important to see that the American people got the medications they needed?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> When an elected official, i.e., the President, bypasses the constitutionally mandated way of making changes to a law, the USA becomes the same type of government as one ruled by a tin pot dictator. You can bet that you haven't heard the end of Obama's changes and his flaunting of law. These changes will be the reason for a lawsuit and a Supreme Court challenge. It just couldn't happen until the law was in effect (Jan 2014). The next step is identifying someone with standing to sue. It's coming.


So when President Bush ordered a fix and everyone worked to benefit the senior citizens who had been hurt that was supporting a dictatorship? 
I have no doubt it will be coming, what a sad day that so many would prefer to spend money on lawsuits than helping those in need.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> So when President Bush ordered a fix and everyone worked to benefit the senior citizens who had been hurt that was supporting a dictatorship?
> I have no doubt it will be coming, what a sad day that so many would prefer to spend money on lawsuits than helping those in need.


Equally shocking, IMHO, is the conservatives' attempt to dissuade young people from signing up for health care. As they have pointed out numerous times, the ACA's ultimate success depends largely on the number of teens and twenty-somethings who do in fact enroll. It absolutely kills me that the ultra-conservatives are so eager to gut Obamacare that they're willing to have young Americans gamble with their future health and financial security in this way.

If older conservatives feel so strongly about the issue and that the ACA is "the worst thing since slavery", why aren't they themselves willing to make the sacrifice? Why don't they all cancel their health insurance and refuse to pay the fine? That would stop Obamacare in its tracks, all right--but they'll never be willing to put their own financial security on the line. They're armchair warriors, without a doubt.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Equally shocking, IMHO, is the conservatives' attempt to dissuade young people from signing up for health care. As they have pointed out numerous times, the ACA's ultimate success depends largely on the number of teens and twenty-somethings who do in fact enroll. It absolutely kills me that the ultra-conservatives are so eager to gut Obamacare that they're willing to have young Americans gamble with their future health and financial security in this way.
> 
> If older conservatives feel so strongly about the issue and that the ACA is "the worst thing since slavery", why aren't they themselves willing to make the sacrifice? Why don't they all cancel their health insurance and refuse to pay the fine? That would stop Obamacare in its tracks, all right--but they'll never be willing to put their own financial security on the line. They're armchair warriors, without a doubt.


Better yet, just stop going to the doctor, that would solve lots of problems, they would open up some of those appointment times that conservatives are worried about. 
I just read, in my meanderings, that while we, the normal earners, pay 6.7% or whatever it is toward FICA anyone who earns $1,000,000. a year pays only .7% 
Not that there are all that many, but yes, a person earning $400K is only paying something like 3%. 
Poor babies, they ARE paying their fair share, yes indeed.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Knit Crazy said: When an elected official, i.e., the President, bypasses the constitutionally mandated way of making changes to a law, the USA becomes the same type of government as one ruled by a tin pot dictator. You can bet that you haven't heard the end of Obama's changes and his flaunting of law. These changes will be the reason for a lawsuit and a Supreme Court challenge. It just couldn't happen until the law was in effect (Jan 2014). The next step is identifying someone with standing to sue. It's coming.



KC, it would probably be good for your image to read other posts before commenting, because you just called Bush a Tin Pot Dictator. When the Bush administration tried to implement Part D it was called a debacle, horrendous and awful by republicans. Bush ordered insurers to "aid the ailing Medicare drug plan," Walgreens, CVS, and other national drugstore chains then as now announced they would fill prescriptions for customers unable to provide proof of their new coverage. NO STATE SUED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR ACTING WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION WHEN IT REQUIRED INSURERS TO PROVIDE THE EMERGENCY PRESCRIPTION COVERAGE.

Do you understand that KC? Bush acted without congressional authority and did the exact same thing, you and other republicans criticize President Obama for doing Instead of suing him the democrats worked with him to implement the new law. Republicans are very very hypocritical.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> And here we have the Easter/Christmas Christian who shows up solely to insult me when she hasn't been part of the conversation for months AND admits she has no idea of the present discussion.
> 
> How very typical and obvious that Susan had to spend her time calling in gang-style troops of support.
> 
> Pathetic. Cowardly. Expected.


You are dillusional. :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No, Shemal, it took you nearly ninety minutes to find only *two * people willing to support you by posting ugly words to others as you did. Neither of your gang-style recruits have even been part of this thread nor are they your buds who you insulted.
> 
> Pretty lonely in the trench isn't it, albeit absent of an in-depth post as well.


Back to the name calling again, KPG? Is that the best you can do? Pathetic....


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> You are dillusional. :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


Too much fruitcake?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> Get over your self-righteous self. What makes you think you have the right to ask for an apology from any one? You insult people more than anyone and never apologize for anything.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You are a complete ignoramus. Joey's son OWNS the home. Cannot you read? Joey said, her son's tenants in *HIS* home.
> 
> Since you like to judge and criticize moochers, what do you have to say to all those children of your Liberal moocher buddies?
> 
> ...


I am still supporting my daughter. Always have and always will. BTW she never had SNAP benefits. She used WIC for 3 months. And that was HER choice. 
I support my daughter by taking care of the baby while she works. You have, as always, no leg to stand on when you print these lies. 
I truly feel sorry for you, Cherf. After printing your diabolical lies here, I would say you owe a few apologies yourself. It' so easy for you to go after everyone's kids and grandkids. Too bad you have such a void in your life. Having none of your own makes you one bitter beeach.

I give MIB kudos for staying and taking care of her mother.
I hope one day if needed one of mine will do that for me.

You are jealous because you have nobody. 
Not one person here owes you anything let alone an explanation for why they do things the way they do, and certainly NO apologies. You reap what you sow.

Give those imaginary grandkids of yours a hug. Then crawl back into your padded cell where you belong.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Back to the name calling again, KPG? Is that the best you can do? Pathetic....


She is *** ****. 
Again with the impossible points to meet. 
If people speak in Susan's defense she has called in the troops, if we don't nobody stands up for her. 
No subtlety at all.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> She is *** ****.
> Again with the impossible points to meet.
> If people speak in Susan's defense she has called in the troops, if we don't nobody stands up for her.
> No subtlety at all.


No sense at all either, jelun. I truly believe this woman is completely demented.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> What is the matter Susan? Cannot get the words out of your big mouth to apologize to those you insulted and have no compassion for?
> 
> Who is the one who just logged off and is running away from her own words with her tail between her legs, hmmm?
> 
> ...


Projecting yet again! Where are the apologies from you?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You still would not change our mind if you had seen every tax return since he was 16. You have not told me where he stashed his money overseas. So unless you have positive proof he has money stashed some place, quit spreading lies.


Of course there is no proof positive, because he wouldn't release more tax returns and there is no other way to find out. He was not very prepared to run for the presidency. If he had been, he would have known this would be an issue. He was pretty arrogant and because he had always be able to manipulate everything around himself before, he thought he could this time too, but it didn't work.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Better yet, just stop going to the doctor, that would solve lots of problems, they would open up some of those appointment times that conservatives are worried about.
> I just read, in my meanderings, that while we, the normal earners, pay 6.7% or whatever it is toward FICA anyone who earns $1,000,000. a year pays only .7%
> Not that there are all that many, but yes, a person earning $400K is only paying something like 3%.
> Poor babies, they ARE paying their fair share, yes indeed.


Can you ever state anything correctly? For 2014, your portion of FICA will be 6.2% and with an employer's portion, total 12.4% up to a maximum base limit in wages ~ $117K I believe.

Medicare is 1.45% for both employee/employer for a 2.9% total on ALL wages. Regardless of earned wages.

Those earning in excess of $200,000 with pay (as of Jan 2013) an *additional* Medicare tax of .9%.

You are completely wrong with your percentages and statements.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> Of course there is no proof positive, because he wouldn't release more tax returns and there is no other way to find out. He was not very prepared to run for the presidency. If he had been, he would have known this would be an issue. He was pretty arrogant and because he had always be able to manipulate everything around himself before, he thought he could this time too, but it didn't work.


Strange how these people think. Romney wouldn't release his tax returns and that is okay. President Obama won't relaese his college records and they are all up in arms. 
One thing they haven't grasped yet is that no matter how much they pee and moan about Obama, he is here til 2016.
And all the peeing and moaning changes nothing!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Can you ever state anything correctly? For 2014, your portion of FICA will be 6.2% and with an employer's portion, total 12.4% up to a maximum base limit in wages ~ $117K I believe.
> 
> Medicare is 1.45% for both employee/employer for a 2.9% total on ALL wages. Regardless of earned wages.
> 
> ...


You are completely wrong as a human being. Oh wait! You aren't human, but just some evil spirit living in a human body. Can you ever state anything correctly? nope.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> She is *** ****.
> Again with the impossible points to meet.
> If people speak in Susan's defense she has called in the troops, if we don't nobody stands up for her.
> No subtlety at all.


Cannot ignore posting to or about me can you. I never said anything you wrote above, so keep on spinning.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> The reason he did not release any more tax returns, is that any number he would release would never be enough to satisfy anyone on the left. You have proved that.
> 
> Then there is no proof positive that he stashed any money in a foreign account. So quit spreading lies.


Romney released his 2011 return as required and two decades of very detailed reports of the numbers from those twenty years of returns that were not requested nor required of him.

Naturally, the Libs in this thread state Romney didn't release his tax return.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> Well it looks like 6 republicans have voted to move the bill along to extend jobless benefits, So, is it because they really believe they should be extended, or is it because they are concerned about how it looks to their constituents? Also are they voting to move the bill along for discussion, just to impress their constituents, and then when it comes down to a final vote, where are they? I just see this hypocrisy thing hanging over their heads. Have to wait and see.
> Some of the republicans keep saying there has to be off-sets before they will vote yes. When there was a vote for Part D without off-sets, they voted yes. For the war in Iraq without off-sets, they voted yes. Hypocrites is the word that comes to mind.


Something I forgot to add, Mitch McConnell wants to add amendments that would delay the ACA individual mandate for a year and another that would restore cuts to military retiree benefits. They just won't give up on trying to destroy the ACA. It will never happen so it's like beating a dead horse to death.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> If these numbers are wrong, what are the right ones?


She doesn't know, she blows hot air and speaks hate and lies only.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> She doesn't know, she blows hot air and speaks hate and lies only.


No, KPG, that's your job. (and my words.)
You are losing ground very rapidly around here.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Romney released his 2011 return as required and two decades of very detailed reports of the numbers from those twenty years of returns that were not requested nor required of him.
> 
> Naturally, the Libs in this thread state Romney didn't release his tax return.


He released 2 years and if he really wanted to be transparent, and really cared about running this country and cared about what the American people thought about him,he would have released 12 like President Obama did. He was just too arrogant and thought he was so far above everyone, that he didn't need to do those kind of things. He definitely was not a down to earth kind of guy. Arrogant is a really good word for him.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> So the question is: Does Obama want to really help the middle class or get his way? He wants his way, the ACA the way he wants it, no matter how many millions of people he hurts in the process.


 There will be many more people who will be helped by this.
Many already have. Once they find that the far right is full of it as many have proved, it will sail on smoothly.
But you can keep the propaganda going, joey, even though it is very old now.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> He released 2 years and if he really wanted to be transparent, and really cared about running this country and cared about what the American people thought about him,he would have released 12 like President Obama did. He was just too arrogant and thought he was so far above everyone, that he didn't need to do those kind of things. He definitely was not a down to earth kind of guy. Arrogant is a really good word for him.


I am so happy that he got slaughtered in the election.
Karma is a funny thing, right NJG?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> He released 2 years and if he really wanted to be transparent, and really cared about running this country and cared about what the American people thought about him,he would have released 12 like President Obama did. He was just too arrogant and thought he was so far above everyone, that he didn't need to do those kind of things. He definitely was not a down to earth kind of guy. Arrogant is a really good word for him.


Arrogant people are very hard to like and trust. Just look at KPG.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Strange how these people think. Romney wouldn't release his tax returns and that is okay. President Obama won't relaese his college records and they are all up in arms.
> One thing they haven't grasped yet is that no matter how much they pee and moan about Obama, he is here til 2016.
> And all the peeing and moaning changes nothing!


Besides all the birthers crap.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> The reason he did not release any more tax returns, is that any number he would release would never be enough to satisfy anyone on the left. You have proved that.
> 
> Then there is no proof positive that he stashed any money in a foreign account. So quit spreading lies.


Look at the numbers, it wasn't people on the left he didn't satisfy. The man didn't satisfy a great many middle of the road folks, that is why he is NOT POTUS.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> He released 2 years and if he really wanted to be transparent, and really cared about running this country and cared about what the American people thought about him,he would have released 12 like President Obama did. He was just too arrogant and thought he was so far above everyone, that he didn't need to do those kind of things. He definitely was not a down to earth kind of guy. Arrogant is a really good word for him.


I stand corrected. Romney did eventually release two years of returns AND two decades of detailed summaries covering those twenty years as I stated prior. Originally, Romney only released the estimated return for 2011, and subsequently released the final return upon completion.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> The reason he did not release any more tax returns, is that any number he would release would never be enough to satisfy anyone on the left. You have proved that.
> 
> Then there is no proof positive that he stashed any money in a foreign account. So quit spreading lies.


There is way too much proof to list the sources individually.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Romney+states+that+he+has+off+shore+accounts&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=romney+states+that+he+has+off+shore+accounts&sc=0-15&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=da21d845ad2149d88b2c9f49b16b18fe


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Did you notice the date of the sources you cited? All were months before He did release his tax return. They were no more than supposition. The proof was in the tax return. Do any of your sources state the country and the amount of money in that account? Unless that can be found it no more than a guess.


Um, the point that I was responding to was your assertion that there was no "proof" that he had off shore accounts that allowed him tax free interest. 
Before you hide behind your typical blind, neither you nor I said anything about illegality.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> You have not provided proof of anything. The only proof is in the tax return.
> 
> I am sorry that you are unable to understand what is written in his tax return.


As usual, you didn't take the time or effort to disprove your fallacies.
You obviously do not understand his tax return.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> So when Bush did the same thing with Part D, was he also breaking the law. Did anyone sue the Bush Administration or did they think it was more important to see that the American people got the medications they needed?


I figured that Knit Crazy must have missed this post, just wanted to make sure that she had a chance to respond.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The reason he did not release any more tax returns, is that any number he would release would never be enough to satisfy anyone on the left. You have proved that.
> 
> Then there is no proof positive that he stashed any money in a foreign account. So quit spreading lies.


The American people could have had a whole different opinion of him if he had been transparent. He chose not to be. Why? Because he had something to hide. You want to blame the democrats, by saying we would have never been satisfied, but that wasn't the problem. The problem was him and how he could not relate to the common man. He had no clue how ordinary people lived. He didn't even know how to talk to people. I still remember seeing him walk into a small diner and ask the lady behind the counter, "How's business?" When she started to tell him, he walked away. He wasn't interested in hearing her story, he didn't care how her life was. He cared about the big corporations and how their business was. He only asked her a question because he thought he should say something to her to be polite. That is why he would have been a terrible president. He didn't talk about poverty or poor people when he first started his campaign. It wasn't till about half way through the campaign before he mentioned the poor. He was so out of touch with the real world. If he had been elected president, he would have been someones puppet, just like Bush was.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I can't disprove something that does not exist.
> 
> Page 66 on this thread explains the proof in the tax returns of both Obama and Romney.
> 
> So if Romney had money hidden in an overseas account, so did Obama.


That's really funny. 
If you say I didn't eat any chocolate yesterday and I say I didn't eat any chocolate yesterday that means that we are BOTH telling the truth about eating chocolate yesterday?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Did you notice the date of the sources you cited? All were months before He did release his tax return. They were no more than supposition. The proof was in the tax return. Do any of your sources state the country and the amount of money in that account? Unless that can be found it no more than a guess.


Did you notice the story about aborted fetuses? Pretty hypocritical to be for abortion when running for governor, against abortion when running for president, but yet having profited from abortion through their disposal. This guy was definitely a flip flopper.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:



> You have not provided proof of anything. I will change that, the proof you provided is that many people on the left provided unfounded accusations.
> 
> The only proof is in the tax return.
> 
> I am sorry that you are unable to understand what is written in his tax return.


So wouldn't it have been interesting if he had provided 12 years of returns. Why wasn't he prepared to do this before he decided to run? Because he was just that arrogant. He thought he was above all that stuff. He has spent his whole life manipulating people to get what he wanted and thought that is all he had to continue to do. Arrogant is the best word for him.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I looked up both companies you mentioned. Nothing about Bain Capital was mentioned in either one. Where did you get your information?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dade_Behring
> 
> ...


You actually use Wikipedia as a reliable source for anything? Anyone can post anything on that site!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> There is way too much proof to list the sources individually.
> 
> http://www.bing.com/search?q=Romney+states+that+he+has+off+shore+accounts&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=romney+states+that+he+has+off+shore+accounts&sc=0-15&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=da21d845ad2149d88b2c9f49b16b18fe


This link you posted here to other links proves nothing other than your inability to understand anything about what you attempted to prove.

Nothing but the info on his released tax returns or the summaries of those released tax returns shows/proves the amount of monies, if any, the wackadoodles on the Left believe Romney stashed away in a foreign country.

You've proved nothing. Romney proved what he had in foreign countries = nothing.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> As usual, you didn't take the time or effort to disprove your fallacies.
> You obviously do not understand his tax return.


Some people are just blind to what is actually going on. I Don't understand how, with all the questions there were about him, that people just chose to follow blindly along and except everything he said. I have two favorite words now, hypocrite and arrogant.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> You actually use Wikipedia as a reliable source for anything? Anyone can post anything on that site!


To be fair, it is next to impossible to avoid using wikipedia these days, and while I prefer to avoid it sometimes when rushed it is the easiest. These days they do say that it has an 84% accuracy rate which is right up there with the good guys.

If it not new subject matter then any necessary edits have probably been done.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> As usual, you didn't take the time or effort to disprove your fallacies.
> You obviously do not understand his tax return.


As usual, you didn't take the time or effort to prove what you set out to prove.

You obviously do not understand tax returns or tax summaries or how to read either.

No wonder you were levied by the IRS.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I figured that Knit Crazy must have missed this post, just wanted to make sure that she had a chance to respond.


Yes I mentioned it twice, but I think she knows when she has made a mistake and just can't face it.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Joey - when do you think the Libs on this thread will get back to discussing current events, not the tax returns and actions of Mitt Romney (>5 years ago), or better still, if ever, Fixed Income?

The Libs are so desperate to talk about anything other than what is helpful to those struggling with limited incomes and no or underemployment, or Obamacare, they are now raking Romney through the coals once again.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> I figured that Knit Crazy must have missed this post, just wanted to make sure that she had a chance to respond.


I figure Knit Crazy doesn't bother to read all of your or NJG's posts nor is KC required to respond to false accusations and/or lies or your silly demands or to the "chances" you think you provide her.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> This link you posted here to other links proves nothing other than your inability to understand anything about what you attempted to prove.
> 
> Nothing but the info on his released tax returns or the summaries of those released tax returns shows/proves the amount of monies, if any, the wackadoodles on the Left believe Romney stashed away in a foreign country.
> 
> You've proved nothing. Romney proved what he had in foreign countries = nothing.


All Romney proved was that he was an arrogant hypocrite. He would say and believe whatever he felt was necessary in any given situation.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> You are the ignoramus, if Joey's son owns the home, Joey has not authority to send any communications out to the tenants.
> LOL, and in addition to being totally ignorant you once again talk out of the many sides of your octagonal mouth. You expect comment on people who support their children in need and then expect comment on people who you decide haven't supported their children enough...all on issues that, frankly, are none of your business.
> BTW, isn't admitted an odd usage?


Joey most certainly can if her son gives her permission to do so.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> All Romney proved was that he was an arrogant hypocrite. He would say and believe whatever he felt was necessary in any given situation.


Mr. Romney was not likely to agree to prove the he was avoiding the payment of taxes, legally or otherwise. 
The Vanity Fair article is quite interesting as was the information of the project that LDS runs that allows members to donate large sums of money and then use that money to invest here and there. I am too lazy to look that up right now.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Joey - when do you think the Libs on this thread will get back to discussing current events, not the tax returns and actions of Mitt Romney (>5 years ago), or better still, if ever, Fixed Income?
> 
> The Libs are so desperate to talk about anything other than what is helpful to those struggling with limited incomes and no or underemployment, or Obamacare, they are now raking Romney through the coals once again.


Probably about the same time you do.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Probably about the same time you do.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Lkholcomb said:


> The hospital I was speaking of closed well before Obama was elected, probably before he was even considering it!


I had a similar thing happen to me, although not at a hospital. It was a distribution center. There was no notice to the employees, just a locked gate when we arrived for work in the morning. The note on the gate said "Under New Management, contact new owner". That was also before Obama. It happens all the time, across a wide range of businesses. Some CEO's don't have a clue about the business they are reigning over.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> To be fair, it is next to impossible to avoid using wikipedia these days, and while I prefer to avoid it sometimes when rushed it is the easiest. These days they do say that it has an 84% accuracy rate which is right up there with the good guys.
> 
> If it not new subject matter then any necessary edits have probably been done.


What is acceptable to one is not acceptable to another :~). I choose never to use one source of information for anything; I'm big on consensus and gathering enough information on all sides to be able to form my own opinion. Those two methods combined seem to work well for me.....


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> So is that something Bush failed to learn, that giving tax cuts to the rich does not stimulate the economy or create jobs. All they did with their tax cuts was stash them in an off shore bank, like Mitt Romney. You republicans tried to shove that jackass down our throats as a smart businessman. I hate to think where we would be if he had won.


Most likely on our way to a growing economy. All you do is talk of the rich and their tax breaks. What about all the Middle Class that are suffering so much under all the new regulations and taxes? Who do you think will suffer the most from this latest extension of the unemployment benefits? It's the hard working MC that will feel the crunch when they have to add this amount to what they already pay. How much more does this group have to sacrifice before the handouts stop? It's time for the unemployed to accept a job that isn't one they desire (or think they are entitled to) and get back into the workforce to start earning a salary and see where they go from there. Who knows, maybe things will turn out better for them in the long run.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> She doesn't need a source, only her imagination. They believe if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth, just like Romney did during the last election.


Just like Obama did with the ACA. In fact, Obama's was the lie of the year, 2013. What an accomplishment.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> What is acceptable to one is not acceptable to another :~). I choose never to use one source of information for anything; I'm big on consensus and gathering enough information on all sides to be able to form my own opinion. Those two methods combined seem to work well for me.....


I am happy for you.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> If that were always the case then the GOP wouldn't have had to spend millions and millions of dollars trying to dissuade these young folks from signing up.


That can be countered with the millions and millions the gov't is spending to get the young to sign up. Why does the gov't feel it is so necessary to spend millions of dollars on a bill that was already passed? The young see the ACA for what it is and don't like it. There are many young out there that are deciding what is best for them and coming up with alternatives to the ACA. And they are not all conservatives or Republicans.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> Something I forgot to add, Mitch McConnell wants to add amendments that would delay the ACA individual mandate for a year and another that would restore cuts to military retiree benefits. They just won't give up on trying to destroy the ACA. It will never happen so it's like beating a dead horse to death.


He is doing that because the 6B for the extension of unemployment benefits has to be paid for. It is money that has to be borrowed. Let's just add that onto the backs of the already over taxed middle class. They are already so hunched over from the existing taxes, what's another one. Way to go Democrats. Throw money at the problem and only get a temporary fix. Does this attitude really make you feel good? Do you really think this is the answer to the employment problem or the stagnant economy?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:



> He is doing that because the 6B for the extension of unemployment benefits has to be paid for. It is money that has to be borrowed. Let's just add that onto the backs of the already over taxed middle class. They are already so hunched over from the existing taxes, what's another one. Way to go Democrats. Throw money at the problem and only get a temporary fix. Does this attitude really make you feel good? Do you really think this is the answer to the employment problem or the stagnant economy?


Funny, I don't feel overtaxed.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Um, the point that I was responding to was your assertion that there was no "proof" that he had off shore accounts that allowed him tax free interest.
> Before you hide behind your typical blind, neither you nor I said anything about illegality.


Romney did admit he had off shore accounts. He even told Obama that he (meaning Obama) had off shore accounts as well through various investments, during the debates. A fact that threw Obama for a loop.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> Some people are just blind to what is actually going on. I Don't understand how, with all the questions there were about him, that people just chose to follow blindly along and except everything he said. I have two favorite words now, hypocrite and arrogant.


Your statement so describes those that followed Obama. You are correct, hypocrite and arrogant are a perfect description of Obama.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I am happy for you.


Somehow I doubt it.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> He is doing that because the 6B for the extension of unemployment benefits has to be paid for. It is money that has to be borrowed. Let's just add that onto the backs of the already over taxed middle class. They are already so hunched over from the existing taxes, what's another one. Way to go Democrats. Throw money at the problem and only get a temporary fix. Does this attitude really make you feel good? Do you really think this is the answer to the employment problem or the stagnant economy?


Yes, and I heard today the GOP is willing to make the extension _again_ if it is paid for while the DEMS are refusing to deal to make a political issue out of it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Romney did admit he had off shore accounts. He even told Obama that he (meaning Obama) had off shore accounts as well through various investments, during the debates. A fact that threw Obama for a loop.


Thank you for backing me up or allowing me to back you up.

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-still-gets-money-bain-offshore-accounts-134221641.html


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> Somehow I doubt it.


Just goes to show how little you know me, I love doing research. I also love that others do research even when that research is posted on wikepedia. <shrug>


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Romney did admit he had off shore accounts. He even told Obama that he (meaning Obama) had off shore accounts as well through various investments, during the debates. A fact that threw Obama for a loop.


Are you suggesting that President Obama didn't know that he had offshore accounts?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Most likely on our way to a growing economy. All you do is talk of the rich and their tax breaks. What about all the Middle Class that are suffering so much under all the new regulations and taxes? Who do you think will suffer the most from this latest extension of the unemployment benefits? It's the hard working MC that will feel the crunch when they have to add this amount to what they already pay. How much more does this group have to sacrifice before the handouts stop? It's time for the unemployed to accept a job that isn't one they desire (or think they are entitled to) and get back into the workforce to start earning a salary and see where they go from there. Who knows, maybe things will turn out better for them in the long run.


Oh, so that is the problem. It's those darn unemployed people, not taking the jobs that are offered to them, even though there are 3 people for every job opening. It amazes me how you can group all the unemployed people together and think you know all about them. Do you think there are no middle class people unemployed? The people needing the extension of benefits were working and lost their jobs. They are not lazy worthless people that don't want to work, as it sounds like that is what you think of the unemployed. Remember There but for the grace of God go I.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/camping-out-for-five-days-in-hopes-of-a-union-job/?_r=0


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> He is doing that because the 6B for the extension of unemployment benefits has to be paid for. It is money that has to be borrowed. Let's just add that onto the backs of the already over taxed middle class. They are already so hunched over from the existing taxes, what's another one. Way to go Democrats. Throw money at the problem and only get a temporary fix. Does this attitude really make you feel good? Do you really think this is the answer to the employment problem or the stagnant economy?


The republicans feel it has to be paid for because we have a democratic president and they want him to fail. Was Medicare Part D paid for under Bush-no. Was the war in Iraq paid for-no, a war I might add that we didn't need to start. Was the unemployment extension in 08 paid for under Bush-what do you think? The republicans are doing everything to make President Obama fail. This kind of crap will continue for the rest of his term. The republicans care only about their party and gaining control, but all they are doing is pissing off a lot of m No I don't think it is the answer to the employment problem. I think rather than spending all last year trying to get rid of the ACA, they should have been working on creating jobs. Republicans keep talking about jobs, but they do nothing and are working even less this year than they did last year.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Romney did admit he had off shore accounts. He even told Obama that he (meaning Obama) had off shore accounts as well through various investments, during the debates. A fact that threw Obama for a loop.


Oh, come on now, we know who got thrown for a loop during the debate. remember Benghazi.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yes, and I heard today the GOP is willing to make the extension _again_ if it is paid for while the DEMS are refusing to deal to make a political issue out of it.


The repbs want it paid for because we have a democratic president and they want him to fail. Nothing had to be paid for under Bush. That is why we are in the mess we are.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Oh, come on now, we know who got thrown for a loop during the debate. remember Benghazi.


Oh Gee, that first one was a pissah, tho.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> They are and they aren't. He does not have a signature authority in any foreign account. He has investments such as a trust that are controlled by others. They are still reported on his tax return.
> 
> Do you know how Obama has his foreign money invested? I have never seen anyone question how his foreign money is invested.
> 
> There is nothing immoral or illegal about Romney's investments. The only problem on the left is that he has to much money and they want part of it


That failed presidential candidate put that BLIND trust in his his wife's name I cannot imagine why. There may be nothing illegal about Mr. Romney's investments. There have been several indicators that there may indeed be something immoral about them. Honestly, I don't care. I don't have to live with Ann and Mitt Romney's morals or lack of them. 
The legal piece, as near as I can tell, was taken care of when there was the amnesty a few years ago. 
It is intellectual curiosity that brings back to me over and over how it is that some people just can never have enough. I think it is very sad.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

NJG said:


> Oh, so that is the problem. It's those darn unemployed people, not taking the jobs that are offered to them, even though there are 3 people for every job opening. It amazes me how you can group all the unemployed people together and think you know all about them. Do you think there are no middle class people unemployed? The people needing the extension of benefits were working and lost their jobs. They are not lazy worthless people that don't want to work, as it sounds like that is what you think of the unemployed. Remember There but for the grace of God go I.
> 
> http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/camping-out-for-five-days-in-hopes-of-a-union-job/?_r=0


I honestly think that some conservatives would be happy to have the horrors of the workhouses revived. Since I grew up in über conservative churches I actually remember people saying things that truly were reminiscent of those that supported workhouses back when. I think that they honestly didn't even know the history of the workhouses, after all this was a church that the pastor would say from the pulpit that the kids, "could learn their ABC's in heaven" because church things were more important.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> I honestly think that some conservatives would be happy to have the horrors of the workhouses revived. Since I grew up in über conservative churches I actually remember people saying things that truly were reminiscent of those that supported workhouses back when. I think that they honestly didn't even know the history of the workhouses, after all this was a church that the pastor would say from the pulpit that the kids, "could learn their ABC's in heaven" because church things were more important.


That whole "deserving poor" thing is enough to make decent people sick and then there are the very conservative who feed on the thought.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> That failed presidential candidate put that BLIND trust in his his wife's name I cannot imagine why. There may be nothing illegal about Mr. Romney's investments. There have been several indicators that there may indeed be something immoral about them. Honestly, I don't care. I don't have to live with Ann and Mitt Romney's morals or lack of them.
> The legal piece, as near as I can tell, was taken care of when there was the amnesty a few years ago.
> It is intellectual curiosity that brings back to me over and over how it is that some people just can never have enough. I think it is very sad.


Ya, I always thought he participated in that amnesty and didn't want anyone to know, so wouldn't release more returns. I agree, like when McCain didn't know how many houses he owned. How can you not know that?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Ya, I always thought he participated in that amnesty and didn't want anyone to know, so wouldn't release more returns. I agree, like when McCain didn't know how many houses he owned. How can you not know that?


I kinda figured that number of houses thing was about campaign brain, similar to President Obama's 57 states. 
It is a grueling endeavor... not one I would ever do.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> That whole "deserving poor" thing is enough to make decent people sick and then there are the very conservative who feed on the thought.


Yes the phrase "deserving poor" makes me sick. The thought of having that much judgement and control over someone, as in deciding if they get benefits or not and then starve to death or the like, is just nuts. I prefer to let Karma deal with those who are not ethical, be they in need or those in the high and mighty spectrum. In my life I have seen many people talk about the "takers" and look down their noses at them and then those same judgmental people end up in the same exact position.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

NJG said:


> Ya, I always thought he participated in that amnesty and didn't want anyone to know, so wouldn't release more returns. I agree, like when McCain didn't know how many houses he owned. How can you not know that?


I would have thought it was because to them houses mean nothing. Kind of like some people have no idea how many bikes they own, because they don't mean so much that they need constant attention. Sort of like it's disposable so why bother with it. I wouldn't be surprised if that showed the American population that he couldn't relate to them, especially when normal people have to work and scrimp and save for just one house.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

The republicans are now talking about poverty. The problem is the things like education that they say they need are the things that the republicans are always cutting. You need a good education, even though there may not be enough money to provide the supplies you need. We are not going to make sure you have food to eat either. You try to learn on an empty stomach and see how that works. Rubio's answer for poor children is marriage. They are poor because they have single mothers, but how dare he shove them all into one group. OMG, my daughter will be furious with him about that. She is a great defender of single Mothers and has been since she was very young.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Yes the phrase "deserving poor" makes me sick. The thought of having that much judgement and control over someone, as in deciding if they get benefits or not and then starve to death or the like, is just nuts. I prefer to let Karma deal with those who are not ethical, be they in need or those in the high and mighty spectrum. In my life I have seen many people talk about the "takers" and look down their noses at them and then those same judgmental people end up in the same exact position.


Exactly, as you well know, disease or disability can strike at any time. Our medical advances have created situations in which a parent must be at home for a child who is multiply handicapped. That family still needs income coming in, are they deserving or undeserving? Will it shift in the future to the other end of the balance? 
I have read people complain of people collecting SS Disability when they have never worked. I am always confounded by that. Why would we save people at birth to expect them to starve and be without shelter later? 
Should we only save those who have rich family members?
How can we consider ourselves civilized if we cannot live as civilized people?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> That failed presidential candidate put that BLIND trust in his his wife's name I cannot imagine why. There may be nothing illegal about Mr. Romney's investments. There have been several indicators that there may indeed be something immoral about them. Honestly, I don't care. I don't have to live with Ann and Mitt Romney's morals or lack of them.
> The legal piece, as near as I can tell, was taken care of when there was the amnesty a few years ago.
> It is intellectual curiosity that brings back to me over and over how it is that some people just can never have enough. I think it is very sad.


For the love of God, explain to us all what foreign investments Romney had and what and how a Blind Trust is taxed and reported on tax returns.

You flap your lips and run your mouth yet don't have any idea what you are talking about on this topic.

You would be wise to stop talking about what you don't understand.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> I would have thought it was because to them houses mean nothing. Kind of like some people have no idea how many bikes they own, because they don't mean so much that they need constant attention. Sort of like it's disposable so why bother with it. I wouldn't be surprised if that showed the American population that he couldn't relate to them, especially when normal people have to work and scrimp and save for just one house.


Then there is Mr. and Mrs. Romney's auto elevator.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Exactly, as you well know, disease or disability can strike at any time. Our medical advances have created situations in which a parent must be at home for a child who is multiply handicapped. That family still needs income coming in, are they deserving or undeserving? Will it shift in the future to the other end of the balance?
> I have read people complain of people collecting SS Disability when they have never worked. I am always confounded by that. Why would we save people at birth to expect them to starve and be without shelter later?
> Should we only save those who have rich family members?
> How can we consider ourselves civilized if we cannot live as civilized people?


I always hope that the ultra-conservatives aren't really thinking things through when they suggest things like abolishing the food stamp program. I remember one rather amazing conversation with an ultra-conservative who wanted not only that but to see misbehaving children placed in public stocks (no kidding).

I dismissed the latter as too insane even to bother debating but did try to take the logical approach with the food stamp issue. No dice. When I said that children without adequate food would die, the conservative said they should be taken from their parents and raised in orphanages. And when I pointed out that it costs 50K or more to raise a child in an institutional setting (didn't even bother mentioning the human cost of such a setup as I knew she didn't care) she dropped out of the thread.

These people are maddening! Anything that doesn't support their view of the world simply doesn't register.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Exactly, as you well know, disease or disability can strike at any time. Our medical advances have created situations in which a parent must be at home for a child who is multiply handicapped. That family still needs income coming in, are they deserving or undeserving? Will it shift in the future to the other end of the balance?
> I have read people complain of people collecting SS Disability when they have never worked. I am always confounded by that. Why would we save people at birth to expect them to starve and be without shelter later?
> Should we only save those who have rich family members?
> How can we consider ourselves civilized if we cannot live as civilized people?


Many people confuse SSI (Supplemental Security Income) with SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance). The former is for those who have never worked, the latter is for those who have.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> I always hope that the ultra-conservatives aren't really thinking things through when they suggest things like abolishing the food stamp program. I remember one rather amazing conversation with an ultra-conservative who wanted not only that but to see misbehaving children placed in public stocks (no kidding).
> 
> I dismissed the latter as too insane even to bother debating but did try to take the logical approach with the food stamp issue. No dice. When I said that children without adequate food would die, the conservative said they should be taken from their parents and raised in orphanages. And when I pointed out that it costs 50K or more to raise a child in an institutional setting (didn't even bother mentioning the human cost of such a setup as I knew she didn't care) she dropped out of the thread.
> 
> These people are maddening! Anything that doesn't support their view of the world simply doesn't register.


By now we should realize that "these people" generally lack empathy and a social conscience. It's as though they live in a very isolated world and they can't face the fact that people in America are suffering. They take it a step farther to say that most of the poor people in this country are "takers" and "moochers" who need to get some ambition and training to improve their lot in life. They have basic philosophical differences about how to treat people and the place of government in our society. All the facts and research in the world means nothing to them because they will always find a way to rationalize anything to conform to their way of thinking. The good Lord himself and the Pope can't intrude on their beliefs!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> Many people confuse SSI (Supplemental Security Income) with SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance). The former is for those who have never worked, the latter is for those who have.


I can never keep those straight. This is probably why.

http://www.ssa.gov/ssi

http://www.ssa.gov/pgm/disability.htm

And, of course, because I didn't have to. It was another person's job to take care of that.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> I would have thought it was because to them houses mean nothing. Kind of like some people have no idea how many bikes they own, because they don't mean so much that they need constant attention. Sort of like it's disposable so why bother with it. I wouldn't be surprised if that showed the American population that he couldn't relate to them, especially when normal people have to work and scrimp and save for just one house.


You know that is really a good possibility.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I can never keep those straight. This is probably why.
> 
> http://www.ssa.gov/ssi
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what you're saying. Where SSI is concerned, think people born with profound disabilities. When they turn 18, they become eliglble for SSI benefits, which provide for very little. It would also apply to adults who have never worked except as child rearers, then become profoundly disabled and have no resources other than SSI, which is usually in conjunction with Medicaid. These people are most often found in institutions in my experience, basic care individuals in extended care facilities. Sometimes they are cared for by relatives in private homes, where SSI provides for food and necessary clothing, with a small allowance for "personal needs," such as soap, toilet paper, lotion, tissues, adult diapers, etc.

SSDI, on the other hand, is for adults who have worked long enough to be eligible for it, have become disabled through catastrophic accidents or illnesses, including mental illness. They must be totally unable to work in any capacity. There have, of course, been scams by those who truly are not totally unable to work. Most of those individuals get tripped up at some point and have to answer to the courts for that behavior. There are also those people whose conditions improved to the point that they are again employable; if they have become too comfortable on SSDI, they too will answer for their choices.

In my experience, which includes 23 years of employment with the Michigan Department of Human Services, I haven't seen anyone get away with anything they haven't had to pay back and/or be incarcerated for. These people are not awarded these programs and then forgotten; there is continuing follow-up on their conditions.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

And then there is this, SAMKewel 


There are three different ways children can collect Social Security or SSI disability benefits. All of the benefits discussed here are cash benefits paid to disabled children or to the children of disabled or retired workers.
Low-income disabled children. Disabled children whose families have low income can collect Supplemental Security Income (SSI) until they are 18, at which point they might be eligible to start collecting adult SSI benefits. Children who are approved for SSI disability can also receive Medicaid.
Children who don't qualify for SSI. Children who are younger than 18 (or 19 if a full-time student) and have a parent who is currently receiving Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) or Social Security retirement benefits (or who had earned enough Social Security credits to earn one of these benefits before dying) may be able to collect dependents benefits based on their parents records, whether they are disabled or not.
Adults disabled since childhood. Disabled children who are older than 18 but who became disabled before they turn 22 can collect disability benefits if they have a parent collecting Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) or Social Security retirement income (or a deceased parent who was entitled to one of these benefits before their death). 
Let's look at these categories in more detail.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The reason he did not release any more tax returns, is that any number he would release would never be enough to satisfy anyone on the left. You have proved that.
> 
> Then there is no proof positive that he stashed any money in a foreign account. So quit spreading lies.


And Mitt told you this? Another dillusional repug. 
Take your own advice.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Many people confuse SSI (Supplemental Security Income) with SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance). The former is for those who have never worked, the latter is for those who have.


Not only those who have never worked. It is for the aged, blind and disabled who have little or no income. It is not provided by social security, but by general tax revenues, but is administered by SS. I have a good friend, very low vision, who receives it.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> Some people are just blind to what is actually going on. I Don't understand how, with all the questions there were about him, that people just chose to follow blindly along and except everything he said. I have two favorite words now, hypocrite and arrogant.


Yes, NJG you are correct. KPG, joey, and solo, better known as the Tourettes Trio, are so lost when it comes to all things political. Helen Keller would have put them to shame.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying. Where SSI is concerned, think people born with profound disabilities. When they turn 18, they become eliglble for SSI benefits, which provide for very little. It would also apply to adults who have never worked except as child rearers, then become profoundly disabled and have no resources other than SSI, which is usually in conjunction with Medicaid. These people are most often found in institutions in my experience, basic care individuals in extended care facilities. Sometimes they are cared for by relatives in private homes, where SSI provides for food and necessary clothing, with a small allowance for "personal needs," such as soap, toilet paper, lotion, tissues, adult diapers, etc.
> 
> SSDI, on the other hand, is for adults who have worked long enough to be eligible for it, have become disabled through catastrophic accidents or illnesses, including mental illness. They must be totally unable to work in any capacity. There have, of course, been scams by those who truly are not totally unable to work. Most of those individuals get tripped up at some point and have to answer to the courts for that behavior. There are also those people whose conditions improved to the point that they are again employable; if they have become too comfortable on SSDI, they too will answer for their choices.
> 
> In my experience, which includes 23 years of employment with the Michigan Department of Human Services, I haven't seen anyone get away with anything they haven't had to pay back and/or be incarcerated for. These people are not awarded these programs and then forgotten; there is continuing follow-up on their conditions.


SSI can also be for an individual over age 65 with limited income. I had a neighbor, receiving SS, but a limited amount, not sure why, had been self employed so maybe due to the amount she had paid in. She received SSI as a supplement to what she received from SS.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Well Christie has finally had to admit the bridge lane closing originated from his office. He is still floating down the river of denial, so will see how it all pans out. Christie has tried everything to sweep it under the rug, but it hasn't worked. Really interested to see how this all plays out.

"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee, wrote Bridget Anne Kelly, a deputy chief of staff to Christie, in an email on Aug. 13 to David Wildstein, Christies appointee at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Wildstein emailed back "Got it."


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Well Christie has finally had to admit the bridge lane closing originated from his office. He is still floating down the river of denial, so will see how it all pans out. Christie has tried everything to sweep it under the rug, but it hasn't worked. Really interested to see how this all plays out.


Nussa and I were just discussing that on Obamacare.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Ok, two guys appointed by Christie, both resigned in December. If he knew nothing about it, does he not question them to find out what is going on and why they resigned. Instead he continues to joke about it and says he is bothered by it, but when talking to a reporter asking questions, says you can't be serious. The mayor tried to contact the governors office and the Port Authority and nobody got back to him. Think about the ambulances and school buses etc. trying to get through. A 91 year old lady died, related to the delay of the ambulance, they won't say. I would think there could be some law suits, here. Some people sue at the drop of a hat and a lady died so who knows.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> I always hope that the ultra-conservatives aren't really thinking things through when they suggest things like abolishing the food stamp program. I remember one rather amazing conversation with an ultra-conservative who wanted not only that but to see misbehaving children placed in public stocks (no kidding).
> 
> I dismissed the latter as too insane even to bother debating but did try to take the logical approach with the food stamp issue. No dice. When I said that children without adequate food would die, the conservative said they should be taken from their parents and raised in orphanages. And when I pointed out that it costs 50K or more to raise a child in an institutional setting (didn't even bother mentioning the human cost of such a setup as I knew she didn't care) she dropped out of the thread.
> 
> These people are maddening! Anything that doesn't support their view of the world simply doesn't register.


That sounds like the conservatives I grew up with! Except they never said stocks, but thought being able to spank any child, whether you know then or not (as in a kid misbehaving in the park or walking down the street), was a great thing and they loved to mention how the Bible said to stone rebellious children.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> That sounds like the conservatives I grew up with! Except they never said stocks, but thought being able to spank any child, whether you know then or not (as in a kid misbehaving in the park or walking down the street), was a great thing and they loved to mention how the Bible said to stone rebellious children.


A Minneapolis man is about to find out that you can't spank or slap other people's children. Evidently he was upset by a 2 year old boy who was crying during the flight he was on. He walked up and slapped the baby. He is old, but should know better.
Can't wait to see the outcome of his court experience.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> Ok, two guys appointed by Christie, both resigned in December. If he knew nothing about it, does he not question them to find out what is going on and why they resigned. Instead he continues to joke about it and says he is bothered by it, but when talking to a reporter asking questions, says you can't be serious. The mayor tried to contact the governors office and the Port Authority and nobody got back to him. Think about the ambulances and school buses etc. trying to get through. A 91 year old lady died, related to the delay of the ambulance, they won't say. I would think there could be some law suits, here. Some people sue at the drop of a hat and a lady died so who knows.


The family of the woman who died has every right to sue.
Sometimes jokes backfire and this one of those times.


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> For the love of God, explain to us all what foreign investments Romney had and what and how a Blind Trust is taxed and reported on tax returns.
> 
> You flap your lips and run your mouth yet don't have any idea what you are talking about on this topic.
> 
> You would be wise to stop talking about what you don't understand.


So maybe you could enlighten everyone. Do please explain to everyone what foreign investments Romney has.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

GW! Great to see you again! :-D :-D


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> A Minneapolis man is about to find out that you can't spank or slap other people's children. Evidently he was upset by a 2 year old boy who was crying during the flight he was on. He walked up and slapped the baby. He is old, but should know better.
> Can't wait to see the outcome of his court experience.


Well, I must admit, I have the same inclination at times to do the same to some conservatives...but I don't.


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> GW! Great to see you again! :-D :-D


Thank you! Took on a new office building my company purchased in December so I've been somewhat preoccupied. It's been crazy busy!


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> And then there is this, SAMKewel
> 
> There are three different ways children can collect Social Security or SSI disability benefits. All of the benefits discussed here are cash benefits paid to disabled children or to the children of disabled or retired workers.
> Low-income disabled children. Disabled children whose families have low income can collect Supplemental Security Income (SSI) until they are 18, at which point they might be eligible to start collecting adult SSI benefits. Children who are approved for SSI disability can also receive Medicaid.
> ...


I had absolutely no idea about the auxiliary claim for kids of disabled parents until I was disabled. Thankfully the social worker who we interviewed with just applied for that too.


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You know that is really a good possibility.


Not to mention they probably have a company to manage the houses for them so they aren't personally handling anything.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

GWPlver said:


> So maybe you could enlighten everyone. Do please explain to everyone what foreign investments Romney has.


One would think that since she is so frickin' smaht that she would know that the blind trust status has no bearing on how the money is taxed, that status is a protection to avoid conflict of interest concerns. It maintains a hands off position for the person who hoped to be POTUS. 
I want to say that Mr. Romney, failure at attaining the one position he wanted to hold, assigned those investments just before he ascended to the throne in Massachusetts. Just maybe he shouldn't have flushed that job away so quickly.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> That sounds like the conservatives I grew up with! Except they never said stocks, but thought being able to spank any child, whether you know then or not (as in a kid misbehaving in the park or walking down the street), was a great thing and they loved to mention how the Bible said to stone rebellious children.


Funny--the issue of child discipline was exactly how we got into that pointless debate. There was a huge fuss in the news over some parents who forced their children to stand on street corners holding signs that proclaimed their evil deeds. The conservatives approved (of course), then took it even further by saying that children needed good old fashioned discipline, that the Bible condoned beatings with a rod, and so on and so on.


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Funny, I don't feel overtaxed.


The economy is only stagnant in certain market areas - not across the nation. Numerous regions are out of the recession and have been for several months.


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> One would think that since she is so frickin' smaht that she would know that the blind trust status has no bearing on how the money is taxed, that status is a protection to avoid conflict of interest concerns. It maintains a hands off position for the person who hoped to be POTUS.
> I want to say that Mr. Romney, failure at attaining the one position he wanted to hold, assigned those investments just before he ascended to the throne in Massachusetts. Just maybe he shouldn't have flushed that job away so quickly.


I admit I do not have an understanding of a blind trust. But the way she posted it sounded as if she did so I thought she might share her knowledge. Typically, she blasts in with some inane comments or demands and then whisks back out without adding any substance.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yes, and I heard today the GOP is willing to make the extension _again_ if it is paid for while the DEMS are refusing to deal to make a political issue out of it.


When Bush extended the benefits in 08, were they paid for. I think I asked this before, but those that are suppose to know won't answer me. Wonder why?


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Funny--the issue of child discipline was exactly how we got into that pointless debate. There was a huge fuss in the news over some parents who forced their children to stand on street corners holding signs that proclaimed their evil deeds. The conservatives approved (of course), then took it even further by saying that children needed good old fashioned discipline, that the Bible condoned beatings with a rod, and so on and so on.


There is a reason that particular type of discipline is called "old fashioned".


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

NJG said:


> When Bush extended the benefits in 08, were they paid for. I think I asked this before, but those that are suppose to know won't answer me. Wonder why?


Ooh, ooh...pick me (hand waving in the air)!

Answer: They don't know.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

GWPlver said:


> Thank you! Took on a new office building my company purchased in December so I've been somewhat preoccupied. It's been crazy busy!


Good for you! Sounds like you have your days and evenings full.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> I had absolutely no idea about the auxiliary claim for kids of disabled parents until I was disabled. Thankfully the social worker who we interviewed with just applied for that too.


I'll bet that was a big relief for you. It's nice to have a social worker who really cares.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

What it is with these so called conservatives? They want kids who can't afford a school lunch to clean the school. Price of a school lunch, what $3.00 maybe? Now they want to beat other people's children? These nuts are all around us and it's scary that some fools will vote for people like this. They are from the south right?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> One would think that since she is so frickin' smaht that she would know that the blind trust status has no bearing on how the money is taxed, that status is a protection to avoid conflict of interest concerns. It maintains a hands off position for the person who hoped to be POTUS.
> I want to say that Mr. Romney, failure at attaining the one position he wanted to hold, assigned those investments just before he ascended to the throne in Massachusetts. Just maybe he shouldn't have flushed that job away so quickly.


Sounds like that arrogance thing again. He believed he was so special and so smart, because look at all the money he had made. He could do anything he wanted. Daddy didn't make it, but boy he would. NOT!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

I wish I could have been in the room when he saw that he lost his chance. His arrogance brought him down. If that bartender had not recorded that 47% shpeel, he may have won. He hung himself.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> I wish I could have been in the room when he saw that he lost his chance. His arrogance brought him down. If that bartender had not recorded that 47% shpeel, he may have won. He hung himself.


Yes, one of those rare times when he said what he actually believed. After that when he tried turning it around, he sounded so phony when he tried to say he cared about everyone.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> A Minneapolis man is about to find out that you can't spank or slap other people's children. Evidently he was upset by a 2 year old boy who was crying during the flight he was on. He walked up and slapped the baby. He is old, but should know better.
> Can't wait to see the outcome of his court experience.


I would be beyond livid if he had done that to my child. He would have been arrested at the departure. Being old is no excuse for it. I know plenty of old people who wouldn't hit a child, kwim?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Funny--the issue of child discipline was exactly how we got into that pointless debate. There was a huge fuss in the news over some parents who forced their children to stand on street corners holding signs that proclaimed their evil deeds. The conservatives approved (of course), then took it even further by saying that children needed good old fashioned discipline, that the Bible condoned beatings with a rod, and so on and so on.


I'm not surprised, not at all. A lot of heavily indoctrinated belief systems, whether they be religious or political, start young and a "discipline" full with heavy handed retribution and punitive punishment primes them for it.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> I'll bet that was a big relief for you. It's nice to have a social worker who really cares.


The social worker was so nice! If I had been in a place to have thought clearer I would have made sure to remember her name and written a letter to tell them how great she was. The office was swamped (as they always are), but even after dealing with people all day, and some not so nice, she was so nice.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> One would think that since she is so frickin' smaht that she would know that the blind trust status has no bearing on how the money is taxed, that status is a protection to avoid conflict of interest concerns. It maintains a hands off position for the person who hoped to be POTUS.
> I want to say that Mr. Romney, failure at attaining the one position he wanted to hold, assigned those investments just before he ascended to the throne in Massachusetts. Just maybe he shouldn't have flushed that job away so quickly.


When you copy some one words and try to pass them off as you own, you can be convicted of that crime. I know you know that and nothing about Fixed Income, Income Taxes or Blind Trusts.

Otherwise, you wouldn't post the opinions you do nor would the IRS levied your personal assets. How embarrassing with you working and being paid by the very state under Governor Romney's leadership.

No wonder you despise him, he has more money and brains than you and his govt had control over you. Your goose got "Cooke"d huh?

Leave taxes and business finances to those who understand them.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

GWPlver said:


> The economy is only stagnant in certain market areas - not across the nation. Numerous regions are out of the recession and have been for several months.


True - and look at which states are run by Republican governors and which by Democrat governors. Even more specifically, look at the cities run by each political party for a comparison of which party persuasion holds a better record of stability and prosperity and creating wealth.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> I'm not surprised, not at all. A lot of heavily indoctrinated belief systems, whether they be religious or political, start young and a "discipline" full with heavy handed retribution and punitive punishment primes them for it.


I have often found it astounding that something that seems so straightforward as "hitting small people teaches them that it is alright to hit small people" doesn't register.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> You are right there are many different types of trusts. If anything has been distributed from the trust, it is taxed as investment income, Capital gains.


I can't remember the first time, Joey, that I heard of a "blind trust" , I do know that it was in relation to politics. It may have been when Ted Kennedy was running for prez. 
I guess it really doesn't matter when it was, I just have been vaguely aware of them and at least that one purpose for decades.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

GWPlver said:


> I admit I do not have an understanding of a blind trust. But the way she posted it sounded as if she did so I thought she might share her knowledge. Typically, she blasts in with some inane comments or demands and then whisks back out without adding any substance.


Finally! Someone on this thread is interested to speak about actual "Fixed Income."

GWPlver, I do have a understanding of how the income of a Blind Trust is reported on tax returns.  Jelun has no understanding, posted inaccurate information and lies with the hope of destroying Romney's name. However, you have the prerogative to believe as you wish.

A "Blind Trust" is nothing more than an investment vehicle for fixed passive income.

I'll use Romney's name in my explanation:

Romney appoints a Trustee to invest on his behalf. The trust is "blind" in that Romney has no control in the decisions of where or with whom his money is invested. The Trustee is presented with investment opportunities and even the Trustee does not know where funds are formed or reside.

The sponsor organizes and chooses the origination and investments.

Romney's Trustee simply agrees or refuses the investment presented by the sponsor, and Romney will either reap the rewards for his risk or not.

The sponsor files a tax return in the USA. That tax return will indicate the proportional share of taxable income of the Romney Blind Trust (RBT).

*All* taxable income from the RBT is reported on Romney's *individual* income tax return.

If you bothered to review the actual tax returns Romney released publicly along with the twenty years of summaries and reports by Romney's accountants, you, too, would know Romney reported and paid tax on every dime of taxable income required of him.

In actuality, Romney pays enormous amounts in income taxes. In fact, Romney paid * more * than he is legally required to because he is a philanthropist and chose to do so. Not my opinions, anyone can see these facts in the released documents.

There - are you happy now? I've given freely of my knowledge to your condescending comments.

I won't even send you a 1099 form for you to file with your tax return for the benefit received even though *you* received something of value.

Now why don't you try it (posting something of value instead of blasting in with insane comments of no substance or value).


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> When Bush extended the benefits in 08, were they paid for. I think I asked this before, but those that are suppose to know won't answer me. Wonder why?


Look in a mirror.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

GWPlver said:


> Ooh, ooh...pick me (hand waving in the air)!
> 
> Answer: They don't know.


Is this an example of you 'whisking in' to add something of substance?

If so, I'm glad you rarely post.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> True - and look at which states are run by Republican governors and which by Democrat governors. Even more specifically, look at the cities run by each political party for a comparison of which party persuasion holds a better record of stability and prosperity and creating wealth.


Do you have Detroit in mind when speaking of specific cities?


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> True - and look at which states are run by Republican governors and which by Democrat governors. Even more specifically, look at the cities run by each political party for a comparison of which party persuasion holds a better record of stability and prosperity and creating wealth.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Jokim said:


> Do you have Detroit in mind when speaking of specific cities?


Yep, Detroit and Flint, MI, Camden, NJ, Chicago and Rockford, IL, Oakland and Stockton, CA, St. Louis, MO - so many can be named.

Consider the economy, crime, housing and employment rates and which political party primarily runs those cities.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Lkholcomb said:


> Why is there is mistaken impression that all Democrats are poor? I don't get that. There are plenty of rich democrats, I personally have known many well to do democrats (not rich, but still very well off). I think that it may be an attempt to try to get more people in the republican group. Kind of like what happens in certain areas when living in a "city" is for poor people idea, so people who want to seem like they have money move to more expensive areas.
> 
> What do you think?


It's not a mistaken impression at all. Democrats don't want their base to view them as having money because they use wealth against the Republicans. They want their base to view wealthy Republicans as the enemy, an enemy that wants the poor to stay poor. It's a simple game plan that has worked for the Democrats for years.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yep, Detroit and Flint, MI, Camden, NJ, Chicago and Rockford, IL, Oakland and Stockton, CA, St. Louis, MO - so many can be named.
> 
> Consider the economy, crime, housing and employment rates and which political party primarily runs those cities.


Yes, that party does leave a trail of destruction in its wake!


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> The republicans feel it has to be paid for because we have a democratic president and they want him to fail. Was Medicare Part D paid for under Bush-no. Was the war in Iraq paid for-no, a war I might add that we didn't need to start. Was the unemployment extension in 08 paid for under Bush-what do you think? The republicans are doing everything to make President Obama fail. This kind of crap will continue for the rest of his term. The republicans care only about their party and gaining control, but all they are doing is pissing off a lot of m No I don't think it is the answer to the employment problem. I think rather than spending all last year trying to get rid of the ACA, they should have been working on creating jobs. Republicans keep talking about jobs, but they do nothing and are working even less this year than they did last year.


And on and on and on you go about all the old news and Bush blaming. Talk about one's needle being stuck. It's time for you to take your blinders off and see what your "wonderful" Democrats are not doing for the American people.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

GWPlver said:


> Not to mention they probably have a company to manage the houses for them so they aren't personally handling anything.


So now you're complaining that he is providing jobs, that is if your obnoxious comment is true.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Lkholcomb said:


> The social worker was so nice! If I had been in a place to have thought clearer I would have made sure to remember her name and written a letter to tell them how great she was. The office was swamped (as they always are), but even after dealing with people all day, and some not so nice, she was so nice.


Why not do it now? Their records will show who had your case. It's never to late to send such a sentiment.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Finally! Someone on this thread is interested to speak about actual "Fixed Income."
> 
> GWPlver, I do have a understanding of how the income of a Blind Trust is reported on tax returns. Jelun has no understanding, posted inaccurate information and lies with the hope of destroying Romney's name. However, you have the prerogative to believe as you wish.
> 
> ...


KPG, if you had just given your information about the blind trust, I would have read it. But no you have to start out by slamming some one else and calling someone else a liar so that just ended it for me. It is now a 'Won't read."

KPG Quote: "Now why don't you try it (posting something of value instead of blasting in with insane comments of no substance or value)."


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Look in a mirror.


Still can't answer or won't because you don't know or don't like the answer? When Bush extended the benefits in 08 were they paid for?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> KPG, if you had just given your information about the blind trust, I would have read it. But no you have to start out by slamming some one else and calling someone else a liar so that just ended it for me. It is now a 'Won't read."
> 
> KPG Quote: "Now why don't you try it (posting something of value instead of blasting in with insane comments of no substance or value)."


Doesn't matter, there is no point in reading it, it was nonsensical.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> And on and on and on you go about all the old news and Bush blaming. Talk about one's needle being stuck. It's time for you to take your blinders off and see what your "wonderful" Democrats are not doing for the American people.


How many times have I called republicans hypocrites? Many many times, but you still never explain why republicans do things one way when they are in control and another way when we have a democrat in the white house. I keep talking about this, but no response from republicans as to why. All the things that were unfunded under Bush but must be funded now. Why is that?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Doesn't matter, there is no point in reading it, it was nonsensical.


I figured that, glad I didn't read it.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Obama has put the country in debt an additional $7 trillion in less than 5 years. The emergency unemployment extension had been extended 5 times. Obama says the economy is improving. If it is improving as Obama says, there should be no need for the unemployment extension. Therefore, why should it be extended if there is not a cut in some other program.
> 
> I would think they learned something when Bush was in the White House and do not want to make the same mistakes.


Unemployment needs to be extended because no one is doing anything about jobs. Have you ever listened to people on tv talking about being unemployed and what they are doing everyday to try to find work? They are not all lazy worthless people out there. The republicans for one thing have spent all their time trying to repeal or defund the ACA. Why not give that up, at least long enough to try to pass some bills that would create jobs. The infrastructure in this country is in terrible shape. How about jobs to change that? Now I know you of course will say well so & so tried to do something, but harry wouldn't bring it to the floor. Save your breath, because everything I have seen that they have tried has come with big cuts to something else. In other words, sure we will create jobs, but somewhere else someone will suffer because we can't allow President Obama to look good.

One more thing, I guarantee you if there is ever another republican in the white house, it will be the same thing it was under Bush. This is not about spending. It is political all the way. Republicans are so pissed they lost the white house, that this is all revenge. Their plan was do all the redistricting they could and take control of as many states as possible, which they accomplished quite a bit, but couldn't pull off the white house and the senate. That is why they are now working on voter suppression.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Bridget Anne Kelly, a deputy chief of staff in Mr. Christies office, gave a signal to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to close the lanes about two weeks before the closings occurred.

Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee, she emailed David Wildstein, Mr. Christies close friend from high school, and one of his appointees at the Port Authority, which controls the bridge. Mr. Christie and some officials at Port Authority have said the closings were done as part of a traffic study, but they caused havoc for days, backing up traffic for hours.
The traffic study has been proven to not be true, but Christie still talked about it today as if it was a possibility. He says he found out just today about all the people involved in this. When two people, friends he appointed, resigned from the Port Authority last month, did he not ask them why , or was it that he knew all about it already. I think he knows a lot more than he is saying. Wildstein took the 5th and answered no questions today. If Christie still runs for president in 2016, won't the political adds be fun then? Please don't do it Christie.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Same old, same old, you aren't interested in a sensible answer!


So what is not sensible about creating jobs and why shouldn't that be the first priority instead of constantly trying to get rid of the ACA? Could the republicans in the house have put their time to better use, because they accomplished nothing in 2012. Do you like what they are doing? Is this the way government should work and do you want this to continue till 2016? Why is it always the poor who have to take the brunt of the cuts? Do the republicans try to cut oil subsidies? Of course not. We've been over the subsidies for rich farmers before and you approve of those, but I think it is disgusting that congressmen/women will vote to keep them and have their hand out for theirs and at the same time vote to cut snap. At the very least, they could not have their hand out and refuse their share as they vote to take food away from children. I would think that would leave a terrible taste in their mouth, but evidently not.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Same old, same old, you aren't interested in a sensible answer!


Could you explain what is sensible about cutting money and food from people's budgets in the middle of the coldest winter in decades with something like 22 million people still out of work?
It doesn't matter which pols have or have not done anything or something useful, does it?
Isn't what is important that in the next 3 months 6.5 BILLION dollars will be removed from the US economy due to the curtailing of benefits. That will be in addition to all of the money that supermarkets and places such as Walmart and Target will lose in food sales. 
Sensible? Define sensible for me, please.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Could you explain what is sensible about cutting money and food from people's budgets in the middle of the coldest winter in decades with something like 22 million people still out of work?
> It doesn't matter which pols have or have not done anything or something useful, does it?
> Isn't what is important that in the next 3 months 6.5 BILLION dollars will be removed from the US economy due to the curtailing of benefits. That will be in addition to all of the money that supermarkets and places such as Walmart and Target will lose in food sales.
> Sensible? Define sensible for me, please.


You say it so much better than I do. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Now this I really enjoy say, or sharing...

Harry Reid Knocks Out the GOP By Announcing Paid for UI Benefits Extension Plan

By: Jason Easleymore from Jason Easley
Thursday, January, 9th, 2014, 6:14 pm
16
3

Senate Republicans are scrambling after Majority Leader Harry Reid announced a paid for Democratic plan to extend unemployment benefits through November 2014.

Reid said that the nearly year long extension met the Republicans conditions for supporting a bill. Democrats would pay for the extension by extending the sequesters mandatory savings for one year. The proposal also cracks down on people who receive both unemployment benefits and disability.

Sen. Reid pointed out on the Senate floor that Democrats are waiting for the Republican plan, but the GOP has offered nothing. Reid said, I wish we could have done it until the first of the year. We cant find enough money. I have been waiting here for more than 24 hours for a reasonable proposal by my Republican friends to pay for this. We dont have one yet.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/09/harry-reid-knocks-gop-announcing-paid-ui-benefits-extension-plan.html

Let's see them back out now!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> NJG question:
> 
> Then NJG has a senseless statement about the ACA that has nothing to do with the statement I answered. It would be nice if she could think of a reason that sensible people like the Republicans would want the unemployment extension paid for.
> 
> I have a better idea, if she wants the unemployment extension passed, she can pay it all out of HER pocket.


I have an even better idea, keep up with the news and see that the DEMS have come up with a way to pay for it for close to a year.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> And take money away from the military that was just returned to their budget. NO WAY


Keep up with the news, it will happen.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Better idea why all those long term unemployed join the military. Maybe not. They probably couldn't pass the physical or the drug tests.


Could you share when the US DOD started admitting 45 and 50 year old people into the military?
You do realize that the US is scaling back on military personnel, right? 
Why do you think there is such a push to provide incentives for people to hire vets? 
Just because you have retired doesn't mean you shouldn't try to keep thinking.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

NJG said:


> So what is not sensible about creating jobs and why shouldn't that be the first priority instead of constantly trying to get rid of the ACA? Could the republicans in the house have put their time to better use, because they accomplished nothing in 2012. Do you like what they are doing? Is this the way government should work and do you want this to continue till 2016? Why is it always the poor who have to take the brunt of the cuts? Do the republicans try to cut oil subsidies? Of course not. We've been over the subsidies for rich farmers before and you approve of those, but I think it is disgusting that congressmen/women will vote to keep them and have their hand out for theirs and at the same time vote to cut snap. At the very least, they could not have their hand out and refuse their share as they vote to take food away from children. I would think that would leave a terrible taste in their mouth, but evidently not.


The poor take the brunt because they don't have the money to push things through courts (like with the ACA and all the attempts at calling it unconstitutional being pushed through the system). Oil companies have lawyers and lobbyists. They have the money to actually go to the court system to further their complaint. The poor wouldn't even be able to take it to the state courts, never mind the federal courts, based on travel costs alone! It's like animals in the wild.... Going after the week or sick.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Now this I really enjoy say, or sharing...
> 
> Harry Reid Knocks Out the GOP By Announcing Paid for UI Benefits Extension Plan
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: I love it when people call their bluff.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> The poor take the brunt because they don't have the money to push things through courts (like with the ACA and all the attempts at calling it unconstitutional being pushed through the system). Oil companies have lawyers and lobbyists. They have the money to actually go to the court system to further their complaint. The poor wouldn't even be able to take it to the state courts, never mind the federal courts, based on travel costs alone! It's like animals in the wild.... Going after the week or sick.


And the truly poor, the helpless and hopeless don't vote, they don't think they are worth the effort, they don't think that they will have any effect on what will happen. That sad part of that, of course, is that they have tremendous impact by staying home. 
Because you know, politicians know that as much as those dollars to buy ads are great and those high placed staffers are wonderful, and the money from those outside political groups are a boon to getting the word out to voters. All that REALLY matters are those votes. It was shown in the 2012 election, rich folks can spend as much as they want, organizations can spend all the money that they have, the political parties can empty their coffers, but baby, if the voters don't want you you are gone!


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

Jokim said:


> Do you have Detroit in mind when speaking of specific cities?


The demise of Detroit was not due to a particular party in charge but to bad decisions made by major corporations and unions. I recently read a case study about this. However, it is much easier to point the finger at political parties rather than understand the root cause(s).


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> True - and look at which states are run by Republican governors and which by Democrat governors. Even more specifically, look at the cities run by each political party for a comparison of which party persuasion holds a better record of stability and prosperity and creating wealth.


Actually, that is not a good barometer.


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> So now you're complaining that he is providing jobs, that is if your obnoxious comment is true.


Well, see - that was not an obnoxious comment - merely an attempt at an explanation. Your reply says a lot about you.


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

NJG said:


> KPG, if you had just given your information about the blind trust, I would have read it. But no you have to start out by slamming some one else and calling someone else a liar so that just ended it for me. It is now a 'Won't read."
> 
> KPG Quote: "Now why don't you try it (posting something of value instead of blasting in with insane comments of no substance or value)."


Typical of this person.


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Obama has put the country in debt an additional $7 trillion in less than 5 years. The emergency unemployment extension had been extended 5 times. Obama says the economy is improving. If it is improving as Obama says, there should be no need for the unemployment extension. Therefore, why should it be extended if there is not a cut in some other program.
> 
> I would think they learned something when Bush was in the White House and do not want to make the same mistakes.


It's not a simple answer and I do not mean that in a derogative fashion. You tend to respond in a meaningful manner and I do read your responses. I was a at luncheon this week and an economist discussed this issue and more and I was fascinated how so many factors play into this.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

GWPlver said:


> Typical of this person.


Read what you wrote to me and you'll see what everyone else did; you insulting me while asking me to explain something to you.

Typical of you.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

GWPlver said:


> Actually, that is not a good barometer.


Dream on.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Now this I really enjoy say, or sharing...
> 
> Harry Reid Knocks Out the GOP By Announcing Paid for UI Benefits Extension Plan
> 
> ...


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Read what you wrote to me and you'll see what everyone else did; you insulting me while asking me to explain something to you.
> 
> Typical of you.


Typical of everyone! You just stink in every way possible.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Same old, same old, you aren't interested in a sensible answer!


She is still waiting for a sensible answer.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Is this an example of you 'whisking in' to add something of substance?
> 
> If so, I'm glad you rarely post.


Please extend the same courtesy to everyone else here.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> For the love of God, explain to us all what foreign investments Romney had and what and how a Blind Trust is taxed and reported on tax returns.
> 
> You flap your lips and run your mouth yet don't have any idea what you are talking about on this topic.
> 
> You would be wise to stop talking about what you don't understand.


Take your own advice. You are the poster figure for "You can't cure ugly or fix stupid".


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yes, and I heard today the GOP is willing to make the extension _again_ if it is paid for while the DEMS are refusing to deal to make a political issue out of it.


I bet you really want to eat these words.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG wrote:
KPG, if you had just given your information about the blind trust, I would have read it. But no you have to start out by slamming some one else and calling someone else a liar so that just ended it for me. It is now a 'Won't read."

KPG Quote: "Now why don't you try it (posting something of value instead of blasting in with insane comments of no substance or value).



GWPlver said:


> Typical of this person.


GW: You do realize, well, I don't think you _do_ realize, that I responded back to you using *your* own words:



GWPlver said:


> Typically, she blasts in with some inane comments or demands and then whisks back out without adding any substance.


What I find most hilarious, is the fool, NJG, critiquing me for "*starting* out slamming someone else" when my words were a summary quote of GWPlver's words used in the *last sentence * of my post to GW.

Oh, dear, *NJG; once a fool always a fool.*

I'm surprised that NJG slammed _your_ words GWPlver. You deserve each other.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> NJG question:
> 
> Then NJG has a senseless statement about the ACA that has nothing to do with the statement I answered. It would be nice if she could think of a reason that sensible people like the Republicans would want the unemployment extension paid for.
> 
> ...


How generous of you. I am sure you have another means of support, but not everyone does. It is that hypocrisy thing again. Because you don't need the money, therefor no one else should get it either. 
As far as my "senseless" statement about the ACA, it is republicans who have been trying to destroy our president and the ACA for the last year when they obviously had other things to do, now that is what I call SENSELESS. I'll pay the unemployment extension out of my pocket if you pay off the bill for the Iraq war out of yours. My question still is did Bush pay for the extension in 08? No one seems to want to answer that. Maybe you should pay that off too. Like I said when republicans do it, it is ok, but don't let democrats try it, then it is suddenly wrong. 
Now it looks like Harry has a plan so lets see if they like that. Since it comes from a democrat, I won't hold out any hope.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> NJG wrote:
> KPG, if you had just given your information about the blind trust, I would have read it. But no you have to start out by slamming some one else and calling someone else a liar so that just ended it for me. It is now a 'Won't read."
> 
> KPG Quote: "Now why don't you try it (posting something of value instead of blasting in with insane comments of no substance or value).
> ...


Typical KPG. Twist things around and try to blame someone else for your actions and words. Tried it before, didn't work. Didn't work this time either.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

GWPlver said:


> The demise of Detroit was not due to a particular party in charge but to bad decisions made by major corporations and unions. I recently read a case study about this. However, it is much easier to point the finger at political parties rather than understand the root cause(s).


Bad decisions made by major corporations and unions that backed Democrat politicians. Detroit has been led by Democrats for 60 years. That has led to Detroit's demise, so yes it is due to a particular political party.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> How many times have I called republicans hypocrites? Many many times, but you still never explain why republicans do things one way when they are in control and another way when we have a democrat in the white house. I keep talking about this, but no response from republicans as to why. All the things that were unfunded under Bush but must be funded now. Why is that?


It's all in the game of politics. Both parties do it, have been doing it for years. It's getting old and stale and now people are leaving both parties and becoming independents.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> Unemployment needs to be extended because no one is doing anything about jobs. Have you ever listened to people on tv talking about being unemployed and what they are doing everyday to try to find work? They are not all lazy worthless people out there. The republicans for one thing have spent all their time trying to repeal or defund the ACA. Why not give that up, at least long enough to try to pass some bills that would create jobs. The infrastructure in this country is in terrible shape. How about jobs to change that? Now I know you of course will say well so & so tried to do something, but harry wouldn't bring it to the floor. Save your breath, because everything I have seen that they have tried has come with big cuts to something else. In other words, sure we will create jobs, but somewhere else someone will suffer because we can't allow President Obama to look good.
> 
> One more thing, I guarantee you if there is ever another republican in the white house, it will be the same thing it was under Bush. This is not about spending. It is political all the way. Republicans are so pissed they lost the white house, that this is all revenge. Their plan was do all the redistricting they could and take control of as many states as possible, which they accomplished quite a bit, but couldn't pull off the white house and the senate. That is why they are now working on voter suppression.


Extending the unemployment is keeping people unemployed longer. They need to get back into the workforce, even if it means taking a job that they don't want to do. Most want the same type of job they lost and refuse anything else. This kind of thinking doesn't help them in the long run. It's a catch-22 situation, for sure, but employers don't want those that have been unemployed for years. They want people that have kept up with technology, have kept their skills sharp or learned new skills, even if those skills aren't required in the position. It's much easier to explain why you took a certain job than it is to explain why you did not.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> KPG, if you had just given your information about the blind trust, I would have read it. But no *you have to start out by slamming some one else* and calling someone else a liar so that just ended it for me. It is now a 'Won't read."
> 
> KPG Quote: "Now why don't you try it (posting something of value instead of blasting in with insane comments of no substance or value).





knitpresentgifts said:


> What I find most hilarious, is the fool, NJG, critiquing me for "starting out slamming someone else" when *my words were a summary quote of GWPlver's words used in the last sentence of my post to GW.*
> 
> Oh, dear, *NJG; once a fool always a fool.*
> 
> I'm surprised that NJG slammed your words GWPlver. You deserve each other.





NJG said:


> Typical KPG. Twist things around and try to blame someone else for your actions and words. Tried it before, didn't work. Didn't work this time either.


Get your head screwed on straight *fool* and understand no one believes a word of your BS. You do _nothing_ but lie. Here is GWPlver's direct quote *again for you*: Notice it is her words in the *last* sentence she used to insult me.

Had *you* read my post about Blind Trusts, you would know that I only repeated GW's words back to her in my LAST SENTENCE exactly as GW did to me.



GWplver said:


> I admit I do not have an understanding of a blind trust. But the way she posted it sounded as if she did so I thought she might share her knowledge. *Typically, she blasts in with some inane comments or demands and then whisks back out without adding any substance.*


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Bad decisions made by major corporations and unions that backed Democrat politicians. Detroit has been led by Democrats for 60 years. That has led to Detroit's demise, so yes it is due to a particular political party.


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Extending the unemployment is keeping people unemployed longer. They need to get back into the workforce, even if it means taking a job that they don't want to do. Most want the same type of job they lost and refuse anything else. This kind of thinking doesn't help them in the long run. It's a catch-22 situation, for sure, but employers don't want those that have been unemployed for years. They want people that have kept up with technology, have kept their skills sharp or learned new skills, even if those skills aren't required in the position. It's much easier to explain why you took a certain job than it is to explain why you did not.


So true. Right now is an excellent time to become gainfully employed. A new year, new Fiscal Year and new budgets, employers have a demand and the supply is tremendous. However, only those who have applied themselves to have a needed or marketable skill set or maintain one will be called back to work or find a new job.

My husband has been offered nine jobs in his field of expertise in the past three days - no interview - just referred and offers because of his knowledge, skills and experience and 'can do' attitude.

Frankly, I'm so very grateful but did get tired of answering calls for him, so let them now go to e-mail or voice mail. :-D He cannot afford my billing rate for me to do his administrative work, and I'd like someone else to earn that comp.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Extending the unemployment is keeping people unemployed longer. They need to get back into the workforce, even if it means taking a job that they don't want to do. Most want the same type of job they lost and refuse anything else. This kind of thinking doesn't help them in the long run. It's a catch-22 situation, for sure, but employers don't want those that have been unemployed for years. They want people that have kept up with technology, have kept their skills sharp or learned new skills, even if those skills aren't required in the position. It's much easier to explain why you took a certain job than it is to explain why you did not.


Are you willing to tell us why you are losing $250. per week if you know what people need to do in order to go get a job?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Are you willing to tell us why you are losing $250. per week if you know what people need to do in order to go get a job?


 ??? I didn't said I was losing $250 per week.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> ??? I didn't said I was losing $250 per week.


Sorry, it was Joey.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> It's all in the game of politics. Both parties do it, have been doing it for years. It's getting old and stale and now people are leaving both parties and becoming independents.


But never to the extent that it is happening now. The first time in history that so little has been accomplished by congress. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont makes a lot of sense on so many things. I would like more like him.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Joey Quote: I personally do not wanted it extended for the good of the entire country. If it does not pass. I will lose about $250 a week for 26 weeks. But we each need to give something for the good of everyone.

So Joey, how long have you been out of work and why haven't you taken another job, even if it isn't in your line of expertise, as KPG just said the supply is tremendous.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> Joey Quote: I personally do not wanted it extended for the good of the entire country. If it does not pass. I will lose about $250 a week for 26 weeks. But we each need to give something for the good of everyone.
> 
> So Joey, how long have you been out of work and why haven't you taken another job, even if it isn't in your line of expertise, as KPG just said the supply is tremendous.


Joey,

Oh, this ought to be good. I cannot wait for you to try to explain to NJG the difference and workings of supply and demand since NJG thinks because the "supply" is tremendous you won't have any trouble finding employment. Or why you are unemployed or not working. sigh ... She doesn't remember anything or maybe she just refuses to speak the truth. Certainly she doesn't understand anything you've or others have said to her. She attempts always to twist everyone's words.

How many times have I stated the majority of Libs, on the threads where I post in response to the topic, simply do not understand business, economies, taxes or finance.

I kinda like this I posted prior, so I'll repeat it:

Once a fool, NJG, always as fool.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Joey,
> 
> Oh, this ought to be good. I cannot wait for you to try to explain to NJG the difference and workings of supply and demand since NJG thinks because the "supply" is tremendous you won't have any trouble finding employment. Or why you are unemployed or not working. sigh ... She doesn't remember anything or maybe she just refuses to speak the truth. Certainly she doesn't understand anything you've or others have said to her.
> 
> ...


So why should other people take a job, any job, instead of collecting unemployment, but not Joey?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

A letter I got from Senator Harkin

Thank you for contacting me regarding Medicare and Social Security. These are important issues and I appreciate hearing your thoughts.

First, I would like to address your concerns regarding Medicare and the future of health care for seniors. I am proud to support the landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) because it strengthens Medicare, increases access to quality care and preventive health services for seniors, lowers costs, and cuts down on fraud and waste, while ensuring Medicare's solvency for years to come. The ACA does not cut benefits, but makes Medicare premiums more affordable by eliminating substantial federal overpayments to private insurers in Medicare Advantage. The ACA also closes the gap in Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage, known as the "donut hole," by 2020, and provided $250 rebate checks to 46,083 Iowa seniors who reached the donut hole in 2010. Seniors who reach the donut hole before it is fully closed in 2020 will receive a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs, saving seniors with high prescription drug costs as much as $12,000 over the next decade. Thanks to this law, over the past two years, 60,366 Iowa seniors have already saved over $39 million - an average savings of roughly $646 per senior.

The ACA also ensures Medicare beneficiaries have access to affordable preventive health care services. For the first time, the ACA provides seniors with free physicals and an annual wellness check-up, giving seniors a chance to develop personalized prevention plans with their doctors to identify and address health conditions before they become difficult and costly to treat. In 2011, 388,676 Iowans with Medicare received free preventive services. The law also eliminates out-of-pocket costs for recommended preventive care and screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, saving the average Medicare beneficiary approximately $3,500 in out-of-pocket costs over the next ten years.

The health reform law also ensures that seniors receive better care by rewarding health professionals for following up after patients are hospitalized, encouraging providers to reduce hospital-acquired infections, and promoting cooperation among health providers when delivering health care.

Finally, the ACA reduces the fraud and abuse that cost Medicare $36 billion last year by requiring hospitals and long-term care facilities to report the quality of care they deliver so that seniors know what type of care they can expect when they visit a health provider. The law also increases oversight to improve efforts to monitor and investigate providers who illegally or improperly bill Medicare. I am pleased that through this legislation, Medicare will save billions of dollars and improve the quality of health care and services delivered to seniors, without cutting any of their benefits.

Unfortunately, some in Washington want to repeal the ACA and slash Medicare benefits for future beneficiaries. Recently the House of Representatives passed a budget resolution on a party-line vote that would dismantle Medicare as we know it, breaking a decades-old promise to seniors who have paid into this program and depend on it for their health care needs.

Under the House majority budget, beginning in 2023, all seniors would be issued a government voucher with which to purchase either private health insurance or traditional Medicare. Because the budget proposal caps the value of the voucher, seniors would be left to make up the difference as health care costs continue to skyrocket. Also in 2023, the proposal raises Medicare's eligibility age from 65 to 67. The House budget would also re-open the Medicare prescription drug donut hole, at an out-of-pocket cost of about $12,000 for each Iowa senior between now and 2020.

Like Medicare and federal health programs, there has recently been much talk about the future solvency of Social Security, especially as baby boomers retire in greater numbers. Some have even suggested the program is in crisis. However, according to the 2013 Social Security Trustees report, the Social Security Trust Fund currently stands at over $2.7 trillion. Without any changes, the Trust Fund will be able to pay full benefits until 2033. After that, Social Security would still pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.

While the system is not in short-term crisis, we cannot afford to neglect its future. I believe that steps should be taken to strengthen Social Security, but I oppose doing so by cutting benefits or privatizing the program. In particular, I am strongly opposed to policies that would result in deep benefits cuts for seniors, such as raising the retirement age, means testing, or reducing annual Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) by adopting the "chained-CPI."

In contrast to this pessimistic vision, I have an alternative vision that will improve retirement for millions of Americans. Earlier this year, I introduced S. 567, the Strengthening Social Security Act of 2013. This legislation would increase Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries by approximately $65 per month, as well as greatly improve the financial stability of the program. In addition, this proposal would change how the annual inflation adjustment is calculated so that it better corresponds to the typical expenses of seniors. Finally, it would also remove the cap on taxable wages that unfairly requires middle class Americans to pay into Social Security at a rate far higher than the highest earning Americans. According to the Social Security Actuaries, my legislation would extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund to 2049 and cut the long term funding deficit in half while also strengthening retirement security for those who depend on Social Security.

Social Security is the most successful government program in our nation's history. It is not in crisis. With sensible steps, like those in my legislation, we can make the program stronger and provide greater financial security for future generations.

Again, thank you for your interest in proposals that will strengthen Medicare and Social Security. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is of interest or concern to you.


Sincerely,





Tom Harkin
United States Senator


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Just wanted to share:


Amen! :thumbup:

Isaiah 54:17 ESV

No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication from me, declares the Lord.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> For those who do not know or who have forgotten. I prepare taxes. I work seasonally Jan -April. Then I am unemployed until the next December or January . Since I have an employer in the private sector, he pays a percentage of my income as unemployment insurance to the state. Then I can collect unemployment insurance, since my employer paid it on my behalf. The state insurance fund pays 26 weeks, and any additional comes from the federal government with the emergency unemployment extensions. My last Federal extension was $256 per week. that expired Dec 31st. If the unemployment is extended I will get more unemployment. Rather than loosing 26 weeks. It would only be about 10. My mistake.
> 
> The amount I receive in unemployment depends on how much I earn in 2 quarters in my annual year. The first 26 weeks is not an entitlement, the amount after that is. I have earned the first 26 weeks because of the work I do. Starting Jan 27, I will be working 10 to 12 hour days M-F, 8 hours on Saturday, off on Sunday until the end of February. Then mainly normal hours until April 15th.
> 
> ...


So after the first 26 weeks you earned do you then refuse to collect any unemployment extensions as a protest against extension, and to show others you refuse to take entitlements? I didn't see that in your post and wanted to ask for clarification.

I respect those who refuse things they are "entitled" to so as to personally live what they believe. I have known a few people who have done this (not necessarily with unemployment, but with other strong beliefs).


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> A letter I got from Senator Harkin
> 
> Thank you for contacting me regarding Medicare and Social Security. These are important issues and I appreciate hearing your thoughts.
> 
> ...


Damn those Dems and their plots to make life better for Americans.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> So after the first 26 weeks you earned do you then refuse to collect any unemployment extensions as a protest against extension, and to show others you refuse to take entitlements? I didn't see that in your post and wanted to ask for clarification.
> 
> I respect those who refuse things they are "entitled" to so as to personally live what they believe. I have known a few people who have done this (not necessarily with unemployment, but with other strong beliefs).


It must be nice to work in Joey's state, here in Mass people cannot collect after doing 3 months work. It is much too little paid into the system for a person to collect, especially on an annual basis, according to the thinking here.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Joey Quote: I personally do not wanted it extended for the good of the entire country. If it does not pass. I will lose about $250 a week for 26 weeks. But we each need to give something for the good of everyone.
> 
> So Joey, how long have you been out of work and why haven't you taken another job, even if it isn't in your line of expertise, as KPG just said the supply is tremendous.


You are correct, of course. I hadn't thought of that, a person is supposed to be actively seeking employment to collect that benefit.
Not that Joey is the first to avoid that particular responsibility.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> You are correct, of course. I hadn't thought of that, a person is supposed to be actively seeking employment to collect that benefit.
> Not that Joey is the first to avoid that particular responsibility.


I forgot about the "must be actively seeking work" thing! Of course it's been a while since my husband or I had to collect unemployment (over 7 years). But I do remember now that you were supposed to be seeking work and they could even review you to make sure you were. I think they also would send little notifications of jobs you might qualify for as well.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> I forgot about the "must be actively seeking work" thing! Of course it's been a while since my husband or I had to collect unemployment (over 7 years). But I do remember now that you were supposed to be seeking work and they could even review you to make sure you were. I think they also would send little notifications of jobs you might qualify for as well.


I never had an unemployment issue, sometimes I wished that I had. :mrgreen:


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> It must be nice to work in Joey's state, here in Mass people cannot collect after doing 3 months work. It is much too little paid into the system for a person to collect, especially on an annual basis, according to the thinking here.


I started looking at unemployment information (you started me on it, with your comment about your states requirements). It looks like some states are starting to exempt seasonal employees from unemployment. I think the count was 15 so far.

But it doesn't look like she will be able to collect this year anyway. According to the Wisconsin website for unemployment you must be employed for 90 days. Given her dates of January 27-April 15, she would only have been employed 78 days. I do hope she has a fallback plan.

http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/publications/ui/ucb9381.pdf


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> I started looking at unemployment information (you started me on it, with your comment about your states requirements). It looks like some states are starting to exempt seasonal employees from unemployment. I think the count was 15 so far.
> 
> But it doesn't look like she will be able to collect this year anyway. According to the Wisconsin website for unemployment you must be employed for 90 days. Given her dates of January 27-April 15, she would only have been employed 78 days. I do hope she has a fallback plan.
> 
> http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/publications/ui/ucb9381.pdf


The prospects don't look good. This was the most recent info I could find quickly. Hopefully things have picked up in WI as well as they have in the rest of the nation.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/wisconsin-private-sector-job-creation-ranking-declines-799bcsa-200435291.html


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> FYI:I actually work year round. The tax season is from January 1- April 15. Then work occasionally when one of my clients calls for assistance. Then start again in November (part-time) for the preseason product. If you read in my earlier post, unemployment depends on 2 quarters of your annual year. Since I am returning to work in the same position there is no searching for work for the first 26 weeks. For most of the ones I work with, this is their only employment.
> 
> I stated I will start working extended hours on Jan 27. I have been working part-time since Nov 27th.


Again, what a wonderful thing for you that you work in such a liberal state as WI. 
You can collect $250./week while still working, I understand that many states don't allow that. It's a good thing that the Governor hasn't figured out those perks yet.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> It proves you know nothing about unemployment. If I work during the week, I report the amount I earn and the number of hours worked and the unemployment payment is adjusted down. I will still get the amount of unemployment, calculated for the year, but it will take longer to receive it.


Well, of course, I know nothing of unemployment. I already posted that I had never used it. 
What I do know is that I would not use it if I were working. It may be legal, but, it seems unethical to me. 
I prefer to leave money and resources for those who need it to a great extent. 
Explains why I am not a Republican, I guess, I dont take anything just because I can.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Since you say you know nothing, why are you commenting as if you do?


We have this wonderful advantage when communicating, it is called information... you know, on the interwebs... at our fingertips. 
Your mixed messages are really a silly way to try to make yourself feel better or to try to insult me. I am 63 yo, I know what I don't know. I also know what I do know. 
I know that it would be wrong FOR ME to take money that I didn't NEED when there are so many others who are desperate. 
That is what socialism is.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Well, of course, I know nothing of unemployment. I already posted that I had never used it.
> What I do know is that I would not use it if I were working. It may be legal, but, it seems unethical to me.
> I prefer to leave money and resources for those who need it to a great extent.
> Explains why I am not a Republican, I guess, I dont take anything just because I can.


What? That comment makes absolutely no sense. The Obamacultist rant that it is the Republicans that want to stop unemployment benefits. If what you say is true, why would Republicans want to stop subsiding their own?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> What? That comment makes absolutely no sense. The Obamacultist rant that it is the Republicans that want to stop unemployment benefits. If what you say is true, why would Republicans want to stop subsiding their own?


Because they care nothing about others--even those belonging to their own party.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> So after the first 26 weeks you earned do you then refuse to collect any unemployment extensions as a protest against extension, and to show others you refuse to take entitlements? I didn't see that in your post and wanted to ask for clarification.
> 
> *I respect those who refuse things they are "entitled" to so as to personally live what they believe.* I have known a few people who have done this (not necessarily with unemployment, but with other strong beliefs).


Splendid! I'm so pleased to know *you respect Republican Governor Romney (MA)* who not only refused his salary when appointed in a crisis to turn around the 2002 Olympics in Utah but also refused his salary for the entire term he served as Governor of Massachusetts. Of course, he was entitled to those salaries, but refused them. Finally, I can agree with you on this point.

Also, I see, that although you don't allow yourself to call others names, you are certainly more than willing to insult others. Now you've intentionally insulted Joey who has sons who served in the military of our Nation, and she works and receives only what she is entitled to for unemployment compensation. I wonder if you or yours ever did either of *those* things. I doubt it, but that's just me.

I didn't see any evidence of _those_ (notice no quantifying once again because I don't know if one or more) in your posts and wanted to ask for clarification.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Because they care nothing about others--even those belonging to their own party.


I don't even know what she is trying to say. Mainly, I suppose, due to the fact that this Obamacultist thing is so ridiculous I can't really read any more of the drivel.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Splendid! I'm so pleased to know *you respect Republican Governor Romney (MA)* who not only refused his salary when appointed in a crisis to turn around the 2002 Olympics in Utah but also refused his salary for the entire term he served as Governor of Massachusetts. Of course, he was entitled to those salaries, but refused them. Finally, I can agree with you on this point.
> 
> Also, I see, that although you don't allow yourself to call others names, you are certainly more than willing to insult others. Now you've intentionally insulted Joey who has sons who served in the military of our Nation, and she works and receives only what she is entitled to for unemployment compensation. I wonder if you or yours ever did either of *those* things. I doubt it, but that's just me.
> 
> I didn't see any evidence of _those_ (notice no quantifying once again because I don't know if one or more) in your posts and wanted to ask for clarification.


Not your business--butt out.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Did I miss a question in your post? I only see accusations.


It is what is known as a declarative sentence. It makes a statement, no accusations, no questions. 
Are you paranoid this morning? Where do you see an accusation?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Did I miss a question in your post? I only see accusations.


It is what is known as declarative sentences. It makes a statement, no accusations, no questions. 
Are you paranoid this morning? Where do you see an accusation?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> ac·cu·sa·tion (ky-zshn)
> n.
> 1. An act of accusing or the state of being accused.
> 
> ...


LOL, I didn't tell you that YOU did anything, I told you what I would not do. 
If you would like I can tell you any number of things that you should do.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Hey LOLL, can you imagine the wrath we would receive if we were the ones collecting unemployment benefits? We would certainly have been told that there are plenty of jobs out there and that if we chose a job that was seasonal, then we would need to find a second job to take care of the rest of the time so we did not have to expect the government to take care of us. We would be called moochers and takers and lazy. It would make no difference if we felt we were entitled or needed the help, we would be one of "those people." This just proves my point, they are hypocrites. It proves another point too. They are always out for themselves. Joey is hoping benefits won't be extended. She doesn't need it and to hell with what everyone else needs.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> Hey LOLL, can you imagine the wrath we would receive if we were the ones collecting unemployment benefits? We would certainly have been told that there are plenty of jobs out there and that if we chose a job that was seasonal, then we would need to find a second job to take care of the rest of the time so we did not have to expect the government to take care of us. We would be called moochers and takers and lazy. It would make no difference if we felt we were entitled or needed the help, we would be one of "those people." This just proves my point, they are hypocrites. It proves another point too. They are always out for themselves. Joey is hoping benefits won't be extended. She doesn't need it and to hell with what everyone else needs.


Heck, we don't even have to imagine. Just think about all the ugly stuff that was said at the time that conservatives were trying to defend the 47% comments of the Mr. Romney. 
That was some pretty nasty "taker, moocher, irresponisible" talk then.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> I never had an unemployment issue, sometimes I wished that I had. :mrgreen:


Of course you never had to file an unemployment claim, you never had an *employment* issue. You worked for the Commonwealth of Mass, the state govt, the only place in the world where the employees NEVER work and say 'have a nice weekend' on Tuesday when they leave for the evening.

Now you have your pension which you didn't earn that is being paid for on the backs of the Massachusetts taxpayers you took advantage of while being paid for not working. Then, of course, all your work for the Union and years representing the Union guaranteed you were never without comp but always taking what was given.

You probably also showed up for work during the time the three corrupt Speakers of the House (MA) were convicted, three _consecutive_ Speakers, I'll add, that you invariably supported as well.

So stop insulting those who earn their keep and receive what they are *entitled * to because they *earned* it. You're a supporter of Liberal and Socialist ideas on KP, so you believe people are 'entitled' to other peoples' monies whether they earned it or not. You prove as much by collecting your pension. Start acting like the person you say you are and file to stop your pension checks and donate your benefit back to the state taxpayers from whom it came.

Put your money where you mouth is for once in your life and feel good about doing the right thing and what you brag about. You stated sometimes 'you wished you had an unemployment problem' so create your own and sacrifice your 'entitlement' for another.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Of course you never had to file an unemployment claim, you never had an *employment* issue. You worked for the Commonwealth of Mass, the state govt, the only place in the world where the employees NEVER work and say 'have a nice weekend' on Tuesday when they leave for the evening.
> 
> Now you have your pension which you didn't earn that is being paid for on the backs of the Massachusetts taxpayers you took advantage of while being paid for not working. Then, of course, all your work for the Union and years representing the Union guaranteed you were never without comp but always taking what was given.
> 
> ...


Ever make assumptions, dear?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Of course you never had to file an unemployment claim, you never had an *employment* issue. You worked for the Commonwealth of Mass, the state govt, the only place in the world where the employees NEVER work and say 'have a nice weekend' on Tuesday when they leave for the evening.
> 
> Now you have your pension which you didn't earn that is being paid for on the backs of the Massachusetts taxpayers you took advantage of while being paid for not working. Then, of course, all your work for the Union and years representing the Union guaranteed you were never without comp but always taking what was given.
> 
> ...


KPG, sometimes I am totally shocked by what you write. What a disgusting thing to say about people that you put all into one group no matter if you know them or not. I think you should start acting like the Christian person you say you are. What you said was very very unchristian. Why do you think it is ok to say that to someone else. Why?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Splendid! I'm so pleased to know *you respect Republican Governor Romney (MA)* who not only refused his salary when appointed in a crisis to turn around the 2002 Olympics in Utah but also refused his salary for the entire term he served as Governor of Massachusetts. Of course, he was entitled to those salaries, but refused them. Finally, I can agree with you on this point.
> 
> Also, I see, that although you don't allow yourself to call others names, you are certainly more than willing to insult others. Now you've intentionally insulted Joey who has sons who served in the military of our Nation, and she works and receives only what she is entitled to for unemployment compensation. I wonder if you or yours ever did either of *those* things. I doubt it, but that's just me.
> 
> I didn't see any evidence of _those_ (notice no quantifying once again because I don't know if one or more) in your posts and wanted to ask for clarification.


Well yes, of course I would respect Romney for doing that. Just respecting someone however does not mean I agree with everything they do or with all their beliefs. I respect many of my friends who fall in the "conservative" group, mostly for living thier beliefs, but by no means agree with them politically or belief-wise.

* Since you so nicely asked, we do have family who has served in the military and we are proud they stood up for their beliefs: *

We have a cousin who is still a major and pilot for the airforce and served during operation desert storm, gulf war, and our present conflicts.

A close cousin who (his wife was more like a sister to my mil who was an only child) served in Vietnam (he was spit upon when he returned)

My father served during the Vietnam war.

My father in law's brother served during the vietnam war. (my fil did not pass the physical)

* During WWII the following family served:*

My grandfather served during WWII, stationed in India, his brother also served in WWII as well.

My mother in law's father did not pass the physical during WWII for the army, but he served in the Civil Air Patrol.

My father in law's father was in WWII stationed in London where he met his wife, a Londoner who survived the blitz

* During WWI: *

My mother in law's uncle and great uncle both served in WWI.

* During the civil war the following served: *

3 family members captured and held in Andersonville, 2 of whom died and the one escaped

A family member who fought in every major battle including (but not limited to) Gettysburg, Antitem, Apamatics, and Fredricksburg. The same family member was present at Appomattox when the south surrendered.

2 additional members who served in the civil war, one of whom did not survive the war.

* During the Revolutionary War we know of one family member who served. *

To posit that I was insulting Joey because I asked if she refuse the extension based on her stated personal beliefs in laughable. You see, my great grandmother and her mother were both Quakers, a group known to stand firm in their beliefs. This was also a group much disliked and maligned because they lived their beliefs instead of just speaking of it. We also had family as a stop on the underground railroad who risked everything in their practice of their beliefs.

When I stated I had a respect for those who lived their beliefs, I meant it.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> To posit that I was insulting Joey because I asked if she refuse the extension based on her stated personal beliefs in laughable. You see, my great grandmother and her mother were both Quakers, a group known to stand firm in their beliefs. This was also a group much disliked and maligned because they lived their beliefs instead of just speaking of it. We also had family as a stop on the underground railroad who risked everything in their practice of their beliefs.
> 
> When I stated I had a respect for those who lived their beliefs, I meant it.


Who cares what your family and friends did, do and believe.

You said you respect those who sacrifice and live what they believe. (Joey said she lives her life in that way.)

What does your family members have to do with you insulting Joey?

Why did you insult Joey?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Who cares what your family and friends did, do and believe.
> 
> What do they have to do with you insulting Joey?
> 
> Why did you?





> Splendid! I'm so pleased to know you respect Republican Governor Romney (MA) who not only refused his salary when appointed in a crisis to turn around the 2002 Olympics in Utah but also refused his salary for the entire term he served as Governor of Massachusetts. Of course, he was entitled to those salaries, but refused them. Finally, I can agree with you on this point.
> 
> Also, I see, that although you don't allow yourself to call others names, you are certainly more than willing to insult others. Now you've intentionally insulted * Joey who has sons who served in the military of our Nation, and she works and receives only what she is entitled to for unemployment compensation. I wonder if you or yours ever did either of those things. I doubt it, but that's just me.*
> 
> I didn't see any evidence of those (notice no quantifying once again because I don't know if one or more) in your posts and wanted to ask for clarification.


You said that Joey has sons who served in the military and then followed it up with "I wonder if you or yours ever did either of those things". I was quenching that thirst for the knowledge of whether my family had done those things.

Again, I did not insult Joey, but I do apologize if thinking that perhaps she belonged in the class of people such as abolitionists, underground railroad workers (my family), a group who peacefully campaigned for social change such as the Quakers (again my family!), or conscientious objectors who worked ambulances during the war is insulting.

Joey, you have my deepest, sincerest apology for seeing that perhaps you belonged in such a group.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Who cares what your family and friends did, do and believe.
> 
> You said you respect those who sacrifice and live what they believe. (Joey said she lives her life in that way.)
> 
> ...


Why did you insult Janet?


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

NJG said:


> Why did you insult Janet?


That is a very good question!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> You said that Joey has sons who served in the military and then followed it up with "I wonder if you or yours ever did either of those things". I was quenching that thirst for the knowledge of whether my family had done those things.


>>>> I had no thirst. I don't drink at the well of hate and ignorance.

I also didn't read about the military service of your family members since I never asked about them and only said "I wonder." My post inquired why you intentionally insulted Joey for living her beliefs. You viciously asked for "clarification."



Lkholcomb said:


> Again, I did not insult Joey.


Again, yes you did (intentionally) and you know you did intentionally. You also read Joey's response as she answered you even after your insults to her. Then you insulted her yet again asking if she knew she had to "work" to collect EARNED unemployment benefits and she'd (Joey) better have a fall-back plan. You were unbelievable condescending and insulting.

I understand now that you don't respect yourself because you do not live what you believe and lie about it to boot. At least you don't call others names. You can praise yourself for that.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Again, yes you did (intentionally) and you know you did intentionally. You also read Joey's response as she answered you even after your insults to her.
> 
> I understand now that you don't respect yourself because you do not live what you believe and lie about it to boot. At least you don't call others names. You can praise yourself for that.


Why did you intentionally insult Janet?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> KPG, sometimes I am totally shocked by what you write. What a disgusting thing to say about people that you put all into one group no matter if you know them or not. I think you should start acting like the Christian person you say you are. What you said was very very unchristian. Why do you think it is ok to say that to someone else. Why?


It has to be expected, Admin didn't even slap her wrist so naturally she is going to go meandering around to find another spot to abuse me on. LOL, my work history isn't it. Try again. 
She is an abuser, it is part of her illness. She really can't help it.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Again, yes you did (intentionally) and you know you did intentionally. You also read Joey's posts who answered you even after your insults to her.
> 
> I understand now that you don't respect yourself because you do not live what you believe and lie about it to boot. At least you don't call others names.


Yes, I did read Joey's posts after responding to my comment regarding unemployment qualifications. She clarified that she was a year round worker. I am glad for her that she does qualify when she is not working hours. I would not wish anybody to be refused what they need, no matter if they are conservative or liberal.

She did not in any of the posts in response to me say she was offended, if she had I would have stated what I stated in your earlier query regarding what she has taken as insult (supposedly, I have yet to hear it from her, even though she has posted since). If so I would have explained my meaning and apologized as I did in my previous post.



> Joey, you have my deepest, sincerest apology for seeing that perhaps you belonged in such a group


The group of Quakers and abolitionists and the like (as stated in my previous post).

As for what you choose to believe of me, it makes no matter to me. I do not concern myself with what others think of me, as it is always clouded with shades of the life they live (wether positive or negative). I pay attention instead with the good I can do and my actions and beliefs as that is what I have the power to control. And do not even bother to ask, "what good have you done" because I also believe in not bragging about what I do but doing it quietly (something that I learned from the Bible and I still hold to be true).


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Again, yes you did (intentionally) and you know you did intentionally. You also read Joey's response as she answered you even after your insults to her. Then you insulted her yet again asking if she knew she had to "work" to collect EARNED unemployment benefits and she'd (Joey) better have a fall-back plan. You were unbelievable condescending and insulting.
> 
> I understand now that you don't respect yourself because you do not live what you believe and lie about it to boot. At least you don't call others names. You can praise yourself for that.


There are places for people like you. Check your health insurance to see if it's covered.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

alcameron said:


> There are places for people like you. Check your health insurance to see if it's covered.


Obamacare has created equity of care for mental illness.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> Obamacare has created equity of care for mental illness.


Yes, I know, but her illness is so pervasive that she might use up the coverage by the end of the month . . .


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> It has to be expected, Admin didn't even slap her wrist so naturally she is going to go meandering around to find another spot to abuse me on. LOL, my work history isn't it. Try again.
> She is an abuser, it is part of her illness. She really can't help it.


Were you not given a list of expectations from your employer and given monetary compensation for them? That sounds a lot like employment to me. I'm not quite sure what definition she is going by.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Joey, you have my deepest, sincerest apology for seeing that perhaps you belonged in such a group.


You did not apologize to Joey for the insults you made to her. You, Joey and I all know it. You apologized for the box you attempted to fit her in knowing full well it had *nothing* to do with what Joey said.

Joey has more class than you could hope to know about, and is intelligent enough not to ask you for or wait for an apology from you. She knows, as do I, you'll never apologize for your rude and crass remarks to her over the three posts you insulted her in.

I'll not say more so you won't insult her or our intelligence again.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Were you not given a list of expectations from your employer and given monetary compensation for them? That sounds a lot like employment to me. I'm not quite sure what definition she is going by.


She could care less about what I did for work or the fact that as a state employee I actually paid 8% into the pension fund rather that the 6.whatever people pay out of their wages in FICA. She is simply searching for a new target. 
I am not trying to be mean with this I am quite serious, she has real mental health issues. I am sure that you can see it. You certainly don't have to say so, I don't know a nurse who wouldn't recognize the signs. 
Anyway, I hope that you are feeling well these days, that whole upper western area confuses the heck out of me. 
I have a friend who lives in the village of Cuba. 
Not sure this will come up...the trouble is that now that I see it I forget what it was. It was taken in '74.
Ah, that is what I was expecting the first time. That is Lake Cube in 1907, I think.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> She could care less about what I did for work or the fact that as a state employee I actually paid 8% into the pension fund rather that the 6.whatever people pay out of their wages in FICA. She is simply searching for a new target.
> I am not trying to be mean with this I am quite serious, she has real mental health issues. I am sure that you can see it. You certainly don't have to say so, I don't know a nurse who wouldn't recognize the signs.
> Anyway, I hope that you are feeling well these days, that whole upper western area confuses the heck out of me.
> I have a friend who lives in the village of Cuba.
> ...


So many people don't understand that government employees (including those who work in public schools) contribute to their own pension funds.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You did not apologize to Joey for the insults you made to her. You, Joey and I all know it. You apologized for the box you attempted to fit her in knowing full well it had *nothing* to do with what Joey said.
> 
> Joey has more class than you could hope to know about, and is intelligent enough not to ask you for or wait for an apology from you. She knows, as do I, you'll never apologize for your rude and crass remarks to her over the three posts you insulted her in.
> 
> I'll not say more so you won't insult her or our intelligence again.


Nor have you ever apologized for the rude and crass remarks you make to everyone else. I'll say no more as trying to communicate with someone who is so hypocritical is a waste of time.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You did not apologize to Joey for the insults you made to her. You, Joey and I all know it. You apologized for the box you attempted to fit her in knowing full well it had *nothing* to do with what Joey said.
> 
> Joey has more class than you could hope to know about, and is intelligent enough not to ask you for or wait for an apology from you. She knows, as do I, you'll never apologize for your rude and crass remarks to her over the three posts you insulted her in.
> 
> I'll not say more so you won't insult her or our intelligence again.


Well then I shall follow your sterling example of class and repeat what you told me when I was insulted by comments you made and * I told you myself, * since any apologies I may make are unworthy of your consideration.

"I would simply say to you, if you do not find yourself fitting the class of people I referenced, it was not written to insult you. So, you should neither internalize nor take offense to something not about you.

BTW: You (KPG) never entered my mind when I wrote the original post. (Further evidence, I guess, to state, that my post wasn't about you.)

ETA: I just checked and I did not 'quote reply' to * you * (KPG) in the original post. I wanted to make sure I did not specifically address you either and I did not.

Be well!"

For reference I followed your example of class from your earlier post to an insult:



> I would simply say to you, if you do not find yourself fitting the descriptive I wrote, it was not written about you. So, you should neither internalize not take offense to something not about you.
> 
> BTW: You never entered my mind when I wrote that post. I'll admit I don't read the majority of your posts yet do not remember seeing any posts of yours within the thread (nor photos) about your knitting projects either. (Further evidence, I guess, to state, that my post wasn't about you.)
> 
> ...


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

alcameron said:


> So many people don't understand that government employees (including those who work in public schools) contribute to their own pension funds.


But if they accepted the truth, it wouldn't be near so easy to be critical.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

O


Janet Cooke said:


> She could care less about what I did for work or the fact that as a state employee I actually paid 8% into the pension fund rather that the 6.whatever people pay out of their wages in FICA. She is simply searching for a new target.
> I am not trying to be mean with this I am quite serious, she has real mental health issues. I am sure that you can see it. You certainly don't have to say so, I don't know a nurse who wouldn't recognize the signs.
> Anyway, I hope that you are feeling well these days, that whole upper western area confuses the heck out of me.
> I have a friend who lives in the village of Cuba.
> ...


My MIL grew up around that area. :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

alcameron said:


> So many people don't understand that government employees (including those who work in public schools) contribute to their own pension funds.


They also miss the part about any SS funds we have coming to us being cut back due to our state pensions. Ah well, the way of life.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> They also miss the part about any SS funds we have coming to us being cut back due to our state pensions. Ah well, the way of life.


Yes, I wish those laws would be repealed.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> O
> 
> My MIL grew up around that area. :thumbup:


We keep talking about a drive out that way, it's too darn far though. Something like 7 hours of driving which would really be 9 due to pitstops and back stretches.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

alcameron said:


> Yes, I wish those laws would be repealed.


When I was union active we would bring it up every year. 
Nuttin' Honey.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> When I was union active we would bring it up every year.
> Nuttin' Honey.


Same here.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Congratulations Lkholcomb! You have just proven you cannot understand what anyone says to you nor apologize for your mistakes.

You have no class and followed nothing from my example as stated, written and explained to you.

Joey was the ONLY person you spoke about and to. You used her name repeatedly and specifically, spoke about Joey's work (tax preparer), unemployment benefits, dates (you counted out for her), block quoted her and even asked if she might be an abolitionist, Quaker, etc. No one, but Joey, entered your mind and ALL your words were to and referred to Joey.

You *specifically* did the things I *specifically* did not do to which you took offense.

You owe Joey an apology for your intentional rude and crass remarks but will not apologize and would rather continue to insult me and everyone else's intelligence who reads this thread to boost your ego.

Be proud you did it!

Too bad you cannot comprehend nor follow my "sterling example of class" (your words).


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Congratulations Lkholcomb! You have just proven you cannot understand what anyone says to you nor apologize for your mistakes.
> 
> You have no class and followed nothing from my example as stated, written and explained to you.
> 
> ...


LOL, that is precious! I missed that. 
I was going to suggest that you have lost your allure. Maybe nobody wants to read your meaningless ramblings anymore.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> LOL, that is precious! I missed that.
> I was going to suggest that you have lost your allure. Maybe nobody wants to read your meaningless ramblings anymore.


Oh Heavens, apparently thinking someone is is the morally upstanding class with abolitionists and Quakers is an insult. :roll:

And apparently reading someone's post, what they wrote, and PAYING ATTENTION to what it says is an insult as well.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Congratulations Lkholcomb! You have just proven you cannot understand what anyone says to you nor apologize for your mistakes.
> 
> You have no class and followed nothing from my example as stated, written and explained to you.
> 
> ...


Please explain to me how my post to Joey was insulting, I have copied them in here for your ease of reading, however both of the posts can be found on page 81 should one wish to look them up.



> So after the first 26 weeks you earned do you then refuse to collect any unemployment extensions as a protest against extension, and to show others you refuse to take entitlements? I didn't see that in your post and wanted to ask for clarification.
> 
> I respect those who refuse things they are "entitled" to so as to personally live what they believe. I have known a few people who have done this (not necessarily with unemployment, but with other strong beliefs).


This one you have referenced in which I was speaking to and quoted ONLY Janet Cooke:



> I started looking at unemployment information (you started me on it, with your comment about your states requirements). It looks like some states are starting to exempt seasonal employees from unemployment. I think the count was 15 so far.
> 
> But it doesn't look like she will be able to collect this year anyway. According to the Wisconsin website for unemployment you must be employed for 90 days. Given her dates of January 27-April 15, she would only have been employed 78 days. I do hope she has a fallback plan.
> 
> http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/publications/ui/ucb9381.pdf


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

She can't, they weren't.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You did not apologize to Joey for the insults you made to her. You, Joey and I all know it. You apologized for the box you attempted to fit her in knowing full well it had *nothing* to do with what Joey said.
> 
> Joey has more class than you could hope to know about, and is intelligent enough not to ask you for or wait for an apology from you. She knows, as do I, you'll never apologize for your rude and crass remarks to her over the three posts you insulted her in.
> 
> I'll not say more so you won't insult her or our intelligence again.


Excellent idea--none of this is your business. Butt out.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Excellent idea--none of this is your business. Butt out.


If only we could keep those promises about not talking...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> If only we could keep those promises about not talking...


Mmmm...I used to wonder why that particular resolution was so difficult to keep, then realized that the fault didn't lie with us. KPG's so desperate for attention that she'll go to ever-increasingly lengths to grab center stage. It's like trying to ignore a marching band parading around one's living room.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Mmmm...I used to wonder why that particular resolution was so difficult to keep, then realized that the fault didn't lie with us. KPG's so desperate for attention that she'll go to ever-increasingly lengths to grab center stage. It's like trying to ignore a marching band parading around one's living room.


Uh huh, I have asked more than once for an "ignore" feature. 
I have used sites less sophisticated than this that allowed for it. It is really too bad, it makes life so much more peaceful.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Of course you never had to file an unemployment claim, you never had an *employment* issue. You worked for the Commonwealth of Mass, the state govt, the only place in the world where the employees NEVER work and say 'have a nice weekend' on Tuesday when they leave for the evening.
> 
> Now you have your pension which you didn't earn that is being paid for on the backs of the Massachusetts taxpayers you took advantage of while being paid for not working. Then, of course, all your work for the Union and years representing the Union guaranteed you were never without comp but always taking what was given.
> 
> ...


BRAVO, KPG!! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> And to think this started with this accusation;
> 
> I knew I missed the question! How can we have a conversation when it starts with an accusation in stead of a question. Janet told me what I was collecting $250 a week while I was working (insinuating that it was illegal), instead of asking me how or why I could do it.
> 
> Forget about apologizing, it won't happen, I have a good strong duck's back and their words are nothing but water.


You are really kidding me, right? You had already explained the whole thing, how else would I know that you could work and collect? You


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> And to think this started with this accusation;
> 
> I knew I missed the question! How can we have a conversation when it starts with an accusation in stead of a question. Janet told me what I was collecting $250 a week while I was working (insinuating that it was illegal), instead of asking me how or why I could do it.
> 
> Forget about apologizing, it won't happen, I have a good strong duck's back and their words are nothing but water.


I don't doubt it!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Note bene:
The post that you are complaining about that was SOOOOOOOO insulting is attached to the post you made in which you explained how the system works in WI. 

How you could possibly misunderstand the connection and the response is beyond me. 


dismiss the lives of those who are believed to be on this earth to create wealth for those too busy to take care of themselves. 
General Chit-Chat (non-knitting talk) -> Fixed Income (go to message) Jan 11, 14 11:16:24 
joeysomma wrote:
FYI:I actually work year round. The tax season is from January 1- April 15. Then work occasionally when one of my clients calls for assistance. Then start again in November (part-time) for the preseason product. If you read in my earlier post, unemployment depends on 2 quarters of your annual year. Since I am returning to work in the same position there is no searching for work for the first 26 weeks. For most of the ones I work with, this is their only employment.

I stated I will start working extended hours on Jan 27. I have been working part-time since Nov 27th.


Again, what a wonderful thing for you that you work in such a liberal state as WI. 
You can collect $250./week while still working, I understand that many states don't allow that. It's a good thing that the Governor hasn't figured out those perks yet. 
General Chit-Chat (non-knitting talk) -> Obamacare #8 (go to message) Jan 11, 14 11:11:32 
Lukelucy wrote:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Now I want my apology.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Please explain to me how my post to Joey was insulting, I have copied them in here for your ease of reading, however both of the posts can be found on page 81 should one wish to look them up.


No thank you. I've already done so multiple times.

I also stated, Joey, who has since checked in on and posted on this thread, has so much class as to not request your apology and that you, without that same class, wouldn't offer one.

That is exactly what has transpired.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> If only we could keep those promises about not talking...


Ya, if only


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> She could care less about what I did for work *or the fact that as a state employee I actually paid 8% into the pension fund rather that the 6*.whatever people pay out of their wages in FICA. She is simply searching for a new target.
> I am not trying to be mean with this I am quite serious, she has real mental health issues. I am sure that you can see it. You certainly don't have to say so, I don't know a nurse who wouldn't recognize the signs.


Let me explain to you why you actually paid 8% into your own pension fund because you don't even understand your own personal compensation package.

Here's the explanation from the Commonwealth of Mass site that shows the requirements of what employees are mandated to pay into their pension fund. You had no choice in the matter.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Jokim said:


> BRAVO, KPG!! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


Thanks Jokim. I'm tired of her running her mouth, insulting everyone and never acting on her convictions.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Thanks Jokim. I'm tired of her running her mouth, insulting everyone and never acting on her convictions.


You're welcome, KPG! :thumbup:


----------



## galinipper (Apr 30, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> I don't doubt it!


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No thank you. I've already done so multiple times.
> 
> I also stated, Joey, who has since checked in on and posted on this thread, has so much class as to not request your apology and that you, without that same class, wouldn't offer one.
> 
> That is exactly what has transpired.


Please highlight what exactly was insulting about my post. You have not actually done that, you have only posted insults at me. There was nothing insulting about my post, nor was it meant to be. I asked if she did refuse the extenstion and followed it with my stated respected for those who do. I am beginning to think that she does not refuse the extension when offered, but avails herself of it while railing against others who do.

Stating you are offended is not the same as asking for an apology. I stated in my post to you KPG that I was not asking for an apology, but making sure to clear the air so that a civil discourse could follow. Having another person being your mouthpiece when you are able to speak yourself does nothing to promote a civil dialogue.



> So after the first 26 weeks you earned do you then refuse to collect any unemployment extensions as a protest against extension, and to show others you refuse to take entitlements? I didn't see that in your post and wanted to ask for clarification.
> 
> I respect those who refuse things they are "entitled" to so as to personally live what they believe. I have known a few people who have done this (not necessarily with unemployment, but with other strong beliefs).


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

I've never watched Duck Dynasty. Are those the method actors or the duck calls?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Let me explain to you why you actually paid 8% into your own pension fund because you don't even understand your own personal compensation package.
> 
> Here's the explanation from the Commonwealth of Mass site that shows the requirements of what employees are mandated to pay into their pension fund. You had no choice in the matter.


And what in God's name was your point in posting this??? She didn't say she had a choice in what she contributed. You misunderstood or intentionally twisted what she said. She understands her compensation package very well. It is you who can't or won't read correctly what she said. Read what she stated again. You should be able to understand her sentences.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Re galinipper's post. Only a person with shoes like that would post such a tasteless picture. You don't have to love them to find that totally offensive. Tells us something about your character.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

alcameron said:


> And what in God's name was your point in posting this??? She didn't say she had a choice in what she contributed. You misunderstood or intentionally twisted what she said. She understands her compensation package very well. It is you who can't or won't read correctly what she said. Read what she stated again. You should be able to understand her sentences.


She is just trying to pick a fight, alcameron, apparently all the silliness over on Obamacare isn't enough for her.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> She is just trying to pick a fight, alcameron, apparently all the silliness over on Obamacare isn't enough for her.


It's just soooo stupid and pointless. She sets herself up to be some kind of erudite leader of KP but doesn't understand the simplest of things. 
She needs to get a life.
Back to my knitting. More constructive.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

alcameron said:


> It's just soooo stupid and pointless. She sets herself up to be some kind of erudite leader of KP but doesn't understand the simplest of things.
> She needs to get a life.
> Back to my knitting. More constructive.


Enjoy, I listen to TedTalks and knit.


----------



## galinipper (Apr 30, 2013)

alcameron said:


> Re galinipper's post. Only a person with shoes like that would post such a tasteless picture. You don't have to love them to find that totally offensive. Tells us something about your character.


Now that you have brought up offensive and character in this post, feel free to explain your character when you have called Tea Party Patriots 'Teabaggers,' many many times. You know exactly what the word means but I would say a few may not, they can look it up. When you have a flawless character then you can question the character of someone else. so tell us about you calling people teabaggers.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

galinipper said:


> Now that you have brought up offensive and character in this post, feel free to explain your character when you have called Tea Party Patriots 'Teabaggers,' many many times. You know exactly what the word means but I would say a few may not, they can look it up. When you have a flawless character then you can question the character of someone else. so tell us about you calling people teabaggers.


The members, those wonderful independent spirits, picked the term themselves.

http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> The members, those wonderful independent spirits, picked the term themselves.
> 
> http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger


Hahaha! I hadn't read that before. :thumbup:


----------



## galinipper (Apr 30, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> The members, those wonderful independent spirits, picked the term themselves.
> 
> http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger


This was before the first TP Patriots knew the sexual meaning of the word, they did not embrace it after that. If a person wants to question my character they need to question their own first. I own what I post, No back peddling on my part.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Hahaha! I hadn't read that before. :thumbup:


I like that despite all the false outrage about people on the left using the term to describe them, the attempts to make money selling "teabagger" buttons hadn't ended more than 4 months after the jokes started.


----------



## galinipper (Apr 30, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> I like that despite all the false outrage about people on the left using the term to describe them, the attempts to make money selling "teabagger" buttons hadn't ended more than 4 months after the jokes started.


And do you also have your occupooper buttons?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

galinipper said:


> This was before the first TP Patriots knew the sexual meaning of the word, they did not embrace it after that. If a person wants to question my character they need to question their own first. I own what I post, No back peddling on my part.


Who "back peddled?" I didn't backpedal, but you must have dug deep to find my use of "Teabaggers." I can call them "teapartiers" if you like, but I sure won't refer to them as "patriots." I guess you have to have flag shoes to be a true patriot.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Janet Cooke said:


> I like that despite all the false outrage about people on the left using the term to describe them, the attempts to make money selling "teabagger" buttons hadn't ended more than 4 months after the jokes started.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> I like that despite all the false outrage about people on the left using the term to describe them, the attempts to make money selling "teabagger" buttons hadn't ended more than 4 months after the jokes started.


And the phrase "tea bagging" with the sexual innuendo has been around long before the tea party even existed.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> And the phrase "tea bagging" with the sexual innuendo has been around long before the tea party even existed.


I must admit I had never heard the term prior to the Tea Party "members" adopting it. But then, I never really worried about naming sexual acts.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Janet Cooke said:


> I must admit I had never heard the term prior to the Tea Party "members" adopting it. But then, I never really worried about naming sexual acts.


Yeah, I think I heard it from a patient at work. My husband told me what it meant, lol. As a nurse you can deal with some real gems of the human race.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Yeah, I think I heard it from a patient at work. My husband told me what it meant, lol. As a nurse you can deal with some real gems of the human race.


I don't bob my teabag into a mug these days, I can tell you that.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Last word mania. It gets all of us at one time or another.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Ya, if only


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Re galinipper's post. Only a person with shoes like that would post such a tasteless picture. You don't have to love them to find that totally offensive. Tells us something about your character.


It also tells us something about your intelligence.


----------



## galinipper (Apr 30, 2013)

alcameron said:


> Who "back peddled?" I didn't backpedal, but you must have dug deep to find my use of "Teabaggers." I can call them "teapartiers" if you like, but I sure won't refer to them as "patriots." I guess you have to have flag shoes to be a true patriot.


It's there, many times, I don't care what you call them, continue as you please with your name calling. You questioned my character, so I questioned yours, also I didn't know that the 'avatar gestapo' had so many members...It's refreshing.


----------



## galinipper (Apr 30, 2013)

damemary said:


> It also tells us something about your intelligence.


Your 'one liners' does the same.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

galinipper said:


> Your 'one liners' does the same.


Wouldn't that be "your one liners do the same?" And isn't that a one liner for you?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I've never watched Duck Dynasty. Are those the method actors or the duck calls?


The picture reflects wanna be's because they have no idea how to run a business, show leadership skills, stay on budget, admit mistakes, not lie, act professional and not take 'selfies with blonde babes' not make promised that they can't keep.........

Duck Dynasty is based on their home grown duck call industry.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

That's more than I ever wanted to know.



lovethelake said:


> The picture reflects wanna be's because they have no idea how to run a business, show leadership skills, stay on budget, admit mistakes, not lie, act professional and not take 'selfies with blonde babes' not make promised that they can't keep.........
> 
> Duck Dynasty is based on their home grown duck call industry.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> The picture reflects wanna be's because they have no idea how to run a business, show leadership skills, stay on budget, admit mistakes, not lie, act professional and not take 'selfies with blonde babes' not make promised that they can't keep.........
> 
> Duck Dynasty is based on their home grown duck call industry.


Obviously you're a huge fan. Three quacks for the little lady!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Obviously you're a huge fan. Three quacks for the little lady!


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> The picture reflects wanna be's because they have no idea how to run a business, show leadership skills, stay on budget, admit mistakes, not lie, act professional and not take 'selfies with blonde babes' not make promised that they can't keep.........
> 
> Duck Dynasty is based on their home grown duck call industry.


Actually, that picture reflects more hate from the bigots, maybe that should be ON the bigots. Sunshine is such a great disinfectant.


----------

