A personal finance blog dedicated to discussing such topics as budgeting, asset allocation, 401K, IRA, cash flow, insurance, financial planning, portfolio management, and other areas in personal finance.
I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies.
I voted Libertarian. If the Republicans had been a little more for fiscal conservatism, I might have voted for them. But no, they kept whining about the “gay menace”, and promising jobs if people would vote for them (how?)…..Libertarians look better and better.
“Of course the Dems don’t have extremists, like the “occupy” people.”
Occupy people have no power or even concrete message, they shouted a little, provided some light entertainment, and left.
The Republican party alienates most women with their anti-abortion, anti-birth control stance, their bigotry. “legitimate rape”? Hello??? It might not be Romney who said it, but as it was to justify the same anti choice position. They should dump the religious right and realize that most people in the US aren’t that religious. Add to it the Tea Party that kept all country hostage to prove a point and refused any kind of compromise.
Romney would won easily if he’d moved to the center, rejected Tea Party, and softened his stance on abortion. It’s not like the conservatives would’ve switched their vote to Obama. It may seem like nothing to you, but for many women it’s important: the president has less influence on economy than on the ability to select the Supreme Court judges. Some of the views of the Republicans today are 19th century. Newsflash – people don’t want other people’s religion shoved down their throats.
I also agree with what Harm said – it’s not like the Republicans showed any concrete plan, there were quite a lot of details missing there. But really, if they were fiscally conservative but dropped their extremist views, they’d have one.
Since when is standing up for what is moral and right “shoving religion down throats?” The problem with our country is an increasing number don’t give a crap about morality. I don’t appreciate peoples’ lack of responsibility for their actions being shoved down my throat…in the form of higher taxes to fund free and reduced lunches, vouchers for housing, inflated medical costs to make up for those who don’t pay/have insurance, food stamps, etc. Or having school district resources diverted to help kids who are behind…because they had lousy parents who never took them to a library or read to them in their formative years… I don’t care what small percentage of the federal budget these social services cost…it’s the principle of paying your own way, learning from your mistakes, and relying on your family (like Jack wants to see happen.)
I thought Romney was a decent and competent man and I was looking forward to having someone with a business background serving as my President. Alas, I get to wait 4 more years for any hope of that.
The Republican party of old white man is dead. The 1950’s attitude they have towards women, minorities, gays and other “unacceptable groups” do not work anymore. Their attempt to shove their religion down everyones throat doesn’t work. The trickle down economics which favors the wealthy is a failure. This is the 21st century, either move on or be left behind.
John, please. That’s a huge crock of poo. Ask any Republican woman and she will tell you that the Republican party does not have a 1950s view towards women. You’re simply regurgitating liberal talking points.
Honestly, what this election proved is that the takers and those sympathetic to the takers voted in order to keep taking. This was a vote to keep food stamps.
Morality is not the same as religion. I respect other people’s beliefs, but religious people seem to think that religion is the same as morality. One doesn’t have to believe in higher power to be a moral person and respect other people and have empathy. Similarly there were plenty of criminals who call themselves religious.
Abortion is essentially an issue of when life begins. If you believe that life begins in conception – it’s your BELIEF it’s not a fact. By denying women control over their own bodies you are imposing your belief on them. Also, the republicans seem anti-science, anti-stem cell research and frankly some of the comments I heard from them show many of them as bigots.
I do agree with some of your points, but as you yourself said – these are not major expenses. Also, some kind of social net is needed or we’ll go back to the 19th century sweat shops. Every one of us can fall on hard times, and not everyone had the benefit of parents who valued education. By the way, I am actually quite secure financially. More importantly, just like BG, while liking some parts of Romney platform, I am not willing to take a chance on the other stuff Republican candidates bring.
I seriously considered voting for Romney because I liked much in what he suggested, but there were other things I wasn’t willing to take a chance on. And by the way, I used to vote Republican, I voted for Reagan and the first Bush (though not the 2nd), I voted for Mc Cain, but this year as much as I wanted to vote Republican, I couldn’t. The Republican party just became too scary. Not that my vote matters in NY, at one point I was actually tempted to cross everyone out and vote for my cat.
Agreed, let’s get our federal government out of all of it. Ron Paul 2016!
End the Fed; eliminate government “school” (indoctrination); eliminate entitlements (kick granny to her kids and family like it has been since the beginning of time). Quit relying on the government to solve problems. We have a gridlocked federal government, and I hope it stays that way. When either party gets full control, they get drunk with power and do stupid things.
Also, Kitty, “Abortion is essentially an issue of when life begins. If you believe that life begins in conception – it’s your BELIEF it’s not a fact. By denying women control over their own bodies you are imposing your belief on them.” Take your feminist BS, and run. Life DOES begin at conception and trying to say other wise is your own religion trying to push down our throats! I believe the science that helped determine R v W is 40 years old now, I think it’s time to face that this murder. Let’s get with the 21st Century on this too.
Kitty, I respect your beliefs and I hope you can respect mine. You’re right, life beginning at conception is presumed to be belief and not a fact. However when folks bring up “viability” of the fetus (double-homicide if a pregnant women is killed) it’s hard to fathom that one day prior to being “viable” it wasn’t considered a life. So on Monday it’s a fetus…but on Tuesday it’s a life. Can you grasp what I’m saying? Conception set it all in motion, so for me, that’s when life begins.
As for a women’s right to her body…the time for that is before agreeing to sex. It’s simple: say no, use birth control, have your honey get a vasectomy…or roll the dice w/your decision to have unprotected sex and accept the consequences.
This is not religious regurgitation, it’s what’s in my heart and brain.
You dont like that the government’s hands are in your pocketbook, but you are wishing the government’s hands were in the v@ginas of women and girls across the USA… (based on your discussion with kitty above).
You are against social programs for people who CHOSE to bring a child into this world when the parents are young or financial unprepared…and you are also a prolifer against even the morning after pill. Carry your thoughts 9 months into the future and image how things will turn out…
Women have control over their bodies, so say no or get your butt (or his butt) to the pharmacy. Trojan made plenty of money off of us for a long time.
Don’t bring a child into the world when you’re young and unprepared. It’s really easy to say no. Children learn it by the time they are one. Many teenagers are pretty good at it too. Not mine or I’d kick their asses. My 3 boys are constantly reminded that any crazy, horny idea they might have coming into either of their brains…would have many consequences. My question to them is: do you really want to have to be involved with this person for the rest of your life? That is what you need to think about before you hop in the sack and do anything stupid. Lucky for me…no girlfriends yet. But they will be reminded again and again as it gets closer…And my other matronly reminder: don’t ever trust that she is indeed on the pill.
Safety nets shouldn’t be crutches. Why is government involved in peoples’ sex lives and their sexual decisions? That should be the real question. BG. All of it should be between a woman and her physician…and her pharmacist. BTW: I never commented on the morning after pill if you re-read my statements. But since you’ve brought it up, it should never have to come to that if people were responsible in their consensual sex. If it’s not consensual, then a woman would have to make that personal decision.
No, your finger is not a genetically distinct individual.
And, no, cancer is not genetically distinct, the DNA of those cells is damaged or mutated. Many cells in the body can be similarly damaged or mutated, and not be cancer. In any case, ALL of the genetic material comes from the person with the cancer. That is not the case with a child.
Finally, the definition of Human Being does have a bearing on politics. One of the reasons for government is to protect the rights of human beings from being violated by other human beings. The typical method of getting away with violating those rights is to dehumanize your victim.
Roe vs Wade may be from the 50s, but the views like yours are from the early 20th century. Do you have a clue how many women died from back alley abortions back then?
As two “life begins at conception” – it depends on what you consider life. If you say that a fertilized egg is alive, than so are sperm and eggs. So maybe we should protect them too, after that they can join? Conception is a process, a set of chemical reactions. A fertilized egg can implant or not, split into two or be miscarried. It can potentially become a thinking, feeling human being if everything works out ok, but it’s certainly not a human being while it is a fetus. I can see the point in the argument from the point of when brain develops i.e. in the last trimester, but until then all you have is potential. Equating an embryo with a child is a religious belief, and you seek to impose it on others.
For the record – I’ve never had an abortion, never even took BCP, always wanted to have kids, but unfortunately wasn’t able to. But other women have different circumstances. Actually I find it interesting that you want to protect fetuses that have no functioning brains and who only have potential to become human being but don’t care about human beings after they are born, those less fortunate than you are – as you yourself said. Nice.
Incidentally, your views and the way you said it is exactly why Romney lost. And if you seriously think that with changing demographics, anybody will vote for Ryan in 2016, you are clueless. You are the reason the Republican Party lost, and it’ll continue losing.
I seriously doubt Stacey that you pay more in taxes than I am given that I live in NY state, have 6-digit salary and a 7 digit net worth. But unlike you I have no problems with helping those less fortunate than I am. But you care more about fetuses – I guess because you don’t need to pay for them – than you do about those who are already born.
Jack – until a fetus has functioning brains, it’s not a human being. You may argue about when life begins, but whatever life a fertilized egg is, it’s not yet a human being yet. Viruses are also a form a life, but we don’t protect them. A fetus has potential to become one but so are sperm and eggs. BTW – you couldn’t care less about children after they are born, you don’t want to help pay for poor women actually getting prenatal care or medial care during delivery, but you want to force women carry the fetus to term. After all in the 19th century peasant women had babies in the field. Lot of them died, but hey, it’s not your problem.
A lot fewer than the number of children who are killed in their mothers’ wombs.
A sperm does not have the fully compliment of DNA to be a human being. It is not a being in the sense of reproducing. Sperm cells do not divide to make more sperm cells. Nor do they join together to make little sperm cells. The same goes for eggs.
“Why is government involved in peoples’ sex lives and their sexual decisions? That should be the real question. BG. All of it should be between a woman and her physician…and her pharmacist.”
Sorry I misunderstood you. I was under the impression that you wanted government involvement (ie: Republicans trying to overturn Roe-v-Wade, outlaw/make hard to obtain contraceptives, only “legitimate” rape results in pregnancies, etc).
Welcome to the Democratic Party!, where common sense prevails.
A zigote or a even a fetus is NOT a child. Your RELIGION may tell you it is, but it’s not a fact. A child has feelings, self-awareness, can breathe on its own. It’s a LIVING, BREATHING human being. It’s not part of another person’s body. A fetus is not breathing or thinking nor does it have emotions of self-awareness. Equating a fetus with a child is a religious view and just because it’s your view doesn’t make it a fact.
Yes if you take an action that guarantees I am not alive than you are a murderer. But I am just like you are LIVING, BREATHING, THINKING human beings. We can are not in somebody’s belly, we also have self-awareness and emotions. We aren’t “potential” we are already living and breathing and feeling and thinking. So, yes killing a LIVING, BREATHING human being, but a fetus isn’t yet one. It has POTENTIAL to become one but it’s not.
Brain development may BEGIN at some point, but it’s not complete, it’s just a small number of cells which may in future – if everything is fine – develop into a functioning brain, it’s not functioning up until the last trimester.
You are equating potential with here and now. If you do that, then by the same logic you can say that we are all going to die, so we are already the same as corpses.
You language of “killing children” is based on a religious view that a fetus is already a child. This is a religious view and not scientific.
Just heard the good news that Obama was declared the winner in Florida. That gives him 332 electoral votes to Rommneys 206. He also won 8 out of 9 swings states. Based on demographics, Arizona, Georgia, and Texas may be swing states in 2016. Wouldn’t that be your worst nightmare, Texas a blue state?
For the record Kitty, we do have a healthy 6-figure income and a 7-digit net worth and pay more in taxes than most families make.. Whether I’m the 5% or 95% I don’t expect other people to pay for my children and I sure as hell don’t want to pay for others’…And stop making assumptions (because we all know what happens when you ASSume) about my charitable giving. I have actively helped those less fortunate since my teenage years, because I’m a firm believer in sharing the talents my Creator blessed me with . We are active in our charitable giving (yes, thousands of dollars a year –check giving , not in kind, we help at the homeless shelter, donate to our food pantry and actively collect as a family, have kids in Scouts helping those in our area with service projects (painting houses, neighborhood beautification, coat and mitten drives, etc.) Just because I don’t condone abortion or paying for other peoples’ poor mistakes via my TAX dollars does not equate with being uncharitable.
JLP–Believe it or not, I WAS a Republican woman. I registered as a Republican in college in the late sixties. I voted for Republicans at the state and congressional level if not always at the presidential level. Republicans at that time appeared to me to be fiscally responsible, favored independence and a hands-off attitude when it came to differing opinions on moral issues. It favored local control over federal control.
I’m not sure of your age, but during the sixties and seventies, the Republicans had a party platform that supported women’s choice over their bodies. It went out when the religious right came in and hi-jacked the party years later..
I now categorize myself as more of a knee-jerk liberal though I do continue to worry about our country’s finances. Still, I am more worried about the tea party whackos that alienated even a natural Republican constituency like the Latinos and a party that takes advice about supreme court appointments from the likes of Bork and Scalia.
You seem to be confusing the choice over your own body, and the choice over the body inside you. In the vast majority of cases, women already made a choice — and screwed it up. “Choice” is just a euphemism for a way to avoid the consequence of the first poor choice. That “choice” means that a child does not live.
Whoa Nellie! I duck out for some honest work in the Sunshine State and come back to a house of screaming cats. Really, look around and you can see exactly what is wrong with America today. Fighting over petty social issues like abortion while the nation is falling from economic prosperity. Smoke and mirrors, side show distractions, petty bickering. I see it in Congress and I see it here.
Obama wins the election (which I know makes JPL very sad) and it turns into an age old fight over abortion. So much for the adults in the room. My only message for all of you is that until you can put your selfish and petty issues aside, you will never be able to work together. This is truth for both this board and for the US Congress. Less I should I remind you the quote, “together we must stand, for divided we shall surely fall.”
You want extremists to moderate their hardline positions? Yep, me too…doesn’t mean it will ever happen though. Thats why the Republican party should kick the tea-party out, moderate their positions, and start working together to solve the common problems we elected our leaders to do (ie: do their job).
The federal budget should be the number 1 priority right now. Perhaps a leap off the “fiscal cliff” is exactly what is needed for the country right now (increased taxes, drastic reduction in military and other government spending).
Example of right wing nut hardline position: During the republican debates, everyone of the candidates said they would refuse a deal consisting of 10:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax revenue (increases).
It is (and was) clear to the majority of the voting population that the Republican party is the “obstructionist party”.
Yep, abortions are pretty sad, but you two make it sound like Democrats are out encouraging people to have them. It is the Democrats that want to ensure contraceptives are available so unwanted pregnancies can be prevented in the first d@mn place!
Compare that with the right-wing-nuts that want to allow insurance companies (or employers) to individually decide whether or not they will cover prescription contraceptives in their health plans. So, lets use some common sense here: who is more likely to have an abortion? A woman whose health insurance plan covers contraceptives, or a woman whose health insurance plan doesn’t cover contraceptives because she works for some right-wing-nut zealot?
As you said earlier Stacey: “Why is government involved in peoples’ sex lives and their sexual decisions? That should be the real question. BG. All of it should be between a woman and her physician…and her pharmacist.”
That is almost exactly the Democratic position on abortions:
“…Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.” (Moving America Forward: 2012 Democratic Party Platform)
I don’t think an employer should have to cover contraception. Let’s face it, condoms are not expensive. Sex is recreation like enjoying booze, going to concerts, attending sports events, etc. I don’t expect employers to cover my partying/habits. So I’m ok w/employers not having to cover it. Just say no or buy the damn Trojans,…it’s pretty simple.
I don’t recall ever calling out the Democratic Party about abortion, BG. That being said, it shouldn’t be promoted or touted, either as if it’s no big deal, or referred to as “petty”.
I’m all about a return to personal responsibility, in the bedroom, child-rearing, financial decisions, savings habits, taking charge of one’s education, etc.
Let’s agree to disagree on this. I won’t change you and you won’t change me.
I am not talking about condoms. I’m talking about prescription contraceptives: birth control pills, implants, IUD, etc. Many of which are prescribed for purposes other than to just prevent pregnancies.
But have fun explaining that to your right wing nut employer, as you beg to have common prescription medications covered under the health & drug insurance policies that your boss has been making you pay a larger share of every year for the past decade.
You’re absolutely hilarious, BG. You say the demonrats’ position is essentially, “Why is government involved in peoples’ sex lives and their sexual decisions? All of it should be between a woman and her physician…and her pharmacist.”
Then you turn around and want someone else to pay for it! Well, then it’s NOT just between the woman and her physician or pharmacist, is it?
As Stacey says, “Let’s agree to disagree on this. I won’t change you and you won’t change me.”
That’s why I call this a “petty” social issue. Do you really care about some woman in Harlem having an abortion when your neighbor next door is struggling for find a job? Unless you are filthy rich, the economies of New York, California, China and India will forever have a direct impact on your personal financial stability and success. As a group of smart people, you should be debating ideas on how to bring the US economy back to life instead of arguing over social issues you may feel very passionate about, but ultimately cannot change.
As for Romney and Obama, I believe that most swing voters went with “the devil” they know versus the one they don’t. Romney would have been a disappointing President as he was firmly in the pocket of the Top 1/10th and would have pushed programs that ultimately benefit those at the very top the most in the disguise of “Restoring the Economy.” Yet, Romney would never support tax reform and he would certainly never have touched the third rail either. In the end, his only real job would be to keep the status quo and appoint very right leaning SC Justices.
Make no mistake, Obama has followed this same path of Bush and Clinton before him. Only problem is, he is not a true believer like Romney. He will most likely stray from the path in the next four years and embrace policies that benefit the common man at the expense of the wealthy. The critical point for Democrats in this election (like Romney) is having Obama appoint the next key justices to the Supreme Court. He will likely choose young, left leaning judges that will defend both Obama-care and Roe v Wade.
For those who cannot remember the past and learn from it are condemned to repeat it. Ultimately, the issues of our day really come down to tax reform and corporate oligarchy.
Jack, I agree with you that a woman should pay for her own contraceptives and abortions and morning after pills.
Stacey, men should be buying and using their own condoms. It’s not just the woman who had unprotected sex Men should pay full child support for all their offspring, regardless of what state (or country) they decide to run and hide. A poor decision was made by two people, not just the woman.
BG, I agree with you that a woman has the right of choice.
See, we can all agree and still argue. How about some discussion on what Obama and the new Congress can/will do to fix the economy???
I’m not saying “someone else should pay for it” — I’m saying employers (and insurance companies) should not be able to dictate which pharmecuiticals an employee should get with their insurance (especially because of the employers religeous beliefs). And don’t try to claim that “employers” are paying for the insurance plans — those costs have been shifted greatly to the employEEs.
“Jack, I agree with you that a woman should pay for her own contraceptives and abortions and morning after pills.”
They are already paying for them via increased insurance premiums / deductibles / copays etc — What Jack wants is to allow employers to dictate that those things not be covered at all under insurance policies. BTW: I’m sure Jack is all for insurance plans covering Viagra and other “male enhancement” medications though. See the slipperly slope where you allow employers to dictate what medical options are available for employees?
The sooner we get to affordable health plans not tied to employment the better (be that single payer or full taxation of employer provided “benefits”, I could care less).
“Stacey, men should be buying and using their own condoms.”
No doubt, everyone agrees to that.
“BG, I agree with you that a woman has the right of choice.”
Uh oh, you just opened the can of worms all over again, heh.
“How about some discussion on what Obama and the new Congress can/will do to fix the economy???”
Agreed — though I don’t necessarily think it is Obama (or Congresses) job to “fix” the economy — rather they concentrate of fixing our broken tax system so it isn’t so attractive for companies to move jobs offshore. Start with a heavy VAT on imports, so imports are taxed at an equivalent rate to goods produced in the USA. Then either eliminate local regulations, or prohibit imports of goods manufactured in such a way that violates local regulations. In essense: even the playing field so we at least have a fighting chance.
Great, I use the word V 1 @ G R A, in a post and now it is stuck in moderation….oh well.
“How about some discussion on what Obama and the new Congress can/will do to fix the economy???”
Agreed — though I don’t necessarily think it is Obama (or Congress’) job to fix the economy — rather they concentrate of fixing our broken tax system so it isn’t so attractive for companies to move jobs offshore. Start with a heavy VAT on imports, so imports are taxed at an equivalent rate to goods produced in the USA. Then either eliminate local regulations, or prohibit imports of goods manufactured in such a way that violates local regulations. In essense: even the playing field so we at least have a fighting chance.
That’ll be a quick discussion: absolutely nothing will be done. The fiscal cliff will be averted and we will drift aimlessly for 4 more years because businesses will not go on a limb for hiring…So continued high unemployment, tapped social services, struggling families, etc.
As a matter of fact I do care about a woman having an abortion, wherever she lives…Harlem or Lake Forest, IL. It may seem like an easy way out at the time, but it can have psychological and health repercussions for a lifetime. So much better to never be in that situation.
We can all agree that an abortion has profound psychological impacts on a woman both before and after the physical operation. Yet that is no excuse to impose your values and beliefs on others by denying them the option of choice. You will not be changed by my statements and I will not be changed by yours. I will give you this to think on: how does American Imperialism negatively impact the lives of others around the world? How does the selling and exportation of US Arms to dictatorships in 3rd world countries lead to death and suffering of men, women and children?
I’ll like the Republican platform better when it embraces life and liberty for all humanity.
Stacey, I believe the Republicans will stall until after the fiscal cliff. Then, after the Bush tax cuts expire, they’ll agree on a lesser tax cut plan which can be portrayed as cutting taxes and not raising taxes, even though the net result will be to raise taxes higher than they are today.
Businesses do not care about Congress or the President as much as they do about making profits. Hiring is not based on the tax plan or the healthcare plan, it’s based on how much product and/or service a business can sell per employee. Fact is, taxes could be zero and the unemployment rate will still be in the 8-10% range (really it’s in the 15-20% range). Taxes were much, much higher in the 1950’s and 60’s, yet unemployment was very low and the middle class was at it’s highest point per capita.
We are currently in a down cycle and it will change for the better in do time, regardless of the party in power. When the winds of prosperity begin to blow again, employment will pick back up and we start fighting over petty issues like abortion all over again.
VF: AS I view the world, allowing abortion is not “embracing life” but it does embrace the liberty of people who choose not to be responsible for their actions. (I am not talking about rape victims, for whomever thinks about retorting with that scenario.) I am not going to reiterate how easy it is to not get pregnant…look at all my previous posts. And I am not imposing my position on others; I am sharing my thoughts, just like you are. If I were a Supreme Court Justice, then you could claim I was “imposing my position.”