MONEY: Stay at home spouse should think outside the box

Monday, November 5, 2012

http://blogs.smartmoney.com/advice/2012/10/22/should-stay-at-home-spouses-get-their-own-credit-cards/?cid=djem_sm_dailyviews_t

OCT 22, 2012, 2:03 PM

Should Stay-at-Home Spouses Get Their Own Credit Cards?

By AnnaMaria Andriotis

*** begin quote ***

An effort to loosen credit-card standards for stay-at-home spouses would seem to benefit millions of consumers, but critics say the change could actually push some families deeper into debt and derail their finances.

Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau proposed loosening regulations to make it easier for the nation’s more than 16 million stay-at-home spouses to qualify for credit cards, largely undoing more stringent requirements put into place in October 2011. Prior to then, consumers could sign up for a credit card by stating their household income, even if all of that income came from their spouse. But the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act required the Federal Reserve to amend several lending provisions for credit card issuers, including a new rule that issuers had to ask for individual income on a credit card application, and could no longer rely on household income.

If enacted, the CFPB’s proposal would allow credit card issuers to ask card applicants 21 and over for income to which they have a “reasonable expectation of access,” which could include a spouse’s salary. The bureau says it’s aware of several issuers that have denied card applications from otherwise creditworthy individuals based on the applicant’s stated income.

***

Not everyone agrees that this problem would outweigh the benefits. Some say the old rules were more fair for consumers. “Stay-at-home parents shouldn’t be penalized because they don’t personally bring in income,” says Scott Bilker, founder of DebtSmart.com.

*** end quote ***

Having had a spouse pass, maybe I am a little sensitive to this issue.

I see this area fraught with issues over and above the very real and present danger that the couple may get into credit card debt.

The value of a two income family is that, if properly diversified by company (i.e., both spouses don’t work for the same big company) as well as by locale (i.e., dad works on Wall Street and mom works on Broad Street in a different sector), then that provides a lot of safety. As long as they “live” on one income, then they are relatively insulated when one of them loses their employment. (Notice I said “when”; not “if”!)

There is a HUGE danger when the two checks are not “independent”. Or, if they need both to “live”.

(Either of those cases are a much bigger problem than the risk being explored here!)

The stay at home spouse, for whatever reason, was deemed the “lesser of two evils”. Maybe, most likely, they earned less and the loss of income is substantively made up for by the lack of day care costs. Net of taxes, commuting, lunches, and “wear ‘n’ tear”, the couple decides to forgo some income, which when net of costs is considered, isn’t so bad.

From my pov, this has several risks to this approach.

Number One is that the stay at home spouse’s skills will “age” badly. For all intents and purposes, I’d guesstimate the spouse’s renetry rate at just the minimum burger flipper wage. “Everyone” can go to MickeyD’s?

Life insurance is a hidden expense in this equation. Having had a dependent spouse, much of my fiscal planning was around if I got hit with the proverbial Mack Truck, what does she do?

One, that I’ve seen but not experienced, is what happens if the stay at home spouse — male or female — gets divorced. The TV prototypical example is Doc X who gets married in med school; typically to a nurse. Becomes a big doc and has an affair with the sexy secretary. Stay at home spouse is <crude vernacular for the act of procreation>. The stay at home spouse is muchly at the mercy of the working spouse.

I’m not sure how you handle these things.

I’m sure the working spouse would be insulted at any suggestion that the stay at how spouse would be eft high and dry.

BUT!

Sorry, but it has to be considered.

Stay at home spouse BEFORE they agree to become the “wife” (boy or girl):

(1) Need life insurance that names them as the beneficiary and lock it in stone;

(2) Need a legal document that outline any promises or expectations (written by a pre-divorce lawyer); and

(3) Funds on deposit in the “stay at home” person’s name that can’t be touched. (Think Titanic’s lifeboat).

Too many people — gay or straight — married or living together — traditional or non-traditional — don’t think outside the box.

I write this not for the adults, but for the children who always seem to get the short end of the straw.

—30—


GUNS: Ms. Tori should have had an “equalizer”

Monday, August 9, 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7934226/Young-woman-randomly-beaten-to-death-by-jobless-teenager-who-had-rowed-with-girlfriend.html

Young woman ‘randomly beaten to death by jobless teenager who had rowed with girlfriend’
By Heidi Blake
Published: 8:49AM BST 09 Aug 2010

*** begin quote ***

A young woman was allegedly beaten to death in a random attack by an unemployed teenager who had recently rowed with his girlfriend.

Toni Rudman, 24, was dragged off the street in broad daylight and beaten to death in a nearby builders’ yard in Plumstead, south London.

*** end quote ***

This is a perfect blog fodder.

In the land of “no guns” and “no self-defense”, the strong criminal prevails. What about this woman’s “rights”. Supposedly protected by the Gooferment. ANd, taken away by a 19 year old rogue.

While technically correct, “teenager” is a misnomer. He’s a thug. Perhaps, you could call him a “young adult”, but “teenager” isn’t appropriate. He’s a criminal.

Now, I can’t be sure that a gun would have made a difference, BUT I would certainly like to see Ms. Toni Rudman given a fighting chance. Sam Colt is correctly applauded, “God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal,” originated as advertising slogan for Colt Manufacturing. It should have been: “God made men and women, but Samuel Colt made them equal”! I can’t say for certain that a nice little 380 in Ms. Tori’s hand would have saved her life. But, I, for one, think that she should have had a chance to defend herself.

That’s what Sheeple on both sides of the pond would like to forget. The world is a dangerous place. And, as if the four legged varmints were not enough of a threat, “We, The People” have allowed a whole subspecies of two legged ones to thrive. While I am a right to lifer where babies are concerned, I’m a little L libertarian who thinks that Ms. Tori had the “unalienable right to life”. As does the “teenager”, up to the point where he initiated force on Ms. Tori. At that point, he made a choice. And, he suffers the consequences of that choice. Ms. Tori SHOULD have had the option to defend her life.

As an interesting thought experiment, if Ms. Tori had been “packing heat”, and if she dropped the “teenager” with a magazine load, then would she have been charged? Probably, because he was just “misunderstood” and she would have “over reacted”.

Another interesting thought experiment, if “open carry” was legal, and if she had on her stylish holster, do you think the “teenager” would have attacked her? Remember Robert A. Heinlein admonishment. “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” He wrote a whole book about an armed society. Juvenile science fiction? I think not.

We are living in a time when the Sheeple are convinced by their politicians and bureaucrats that the timeless laws are suspended. The old ones no longer apply. Just yesterday, I heard Mayor Bloomberg pontificating about “keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals”. The only way that is going to happen is if he cuts off their hands. Criminals don’t obey laws. It may be a bumper sticker, but it’s still true: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”. (I call Bloomberg a pontificator, because he has tax-payer supplied 24/7 armed security. And, even before he was mayor he had bodyguards. (I know I met him twice and saw him several times on Wall Street. He was a real SOB then. I doubt he’s changed. Thought he was right then; no doubt still does.) Unless you think the hulking guy, with the strategic bulge who was always with him, was really his “aide”.

Bottom line: I grieve for Ms. Tori. She was killed by the Gooferment. Just as surely as if they had beaten her to death themselves. England is the land of fools. They think that a Gooferment diktat can repeal the laws of nature. Those twits have made it back into the Jungle. Survival of the fittest. The strong can kill all those weaker than themselves. With just the barest of inconvenience. Watch the results. This “teenager” will be portrayed as: a poor helpless waif; totally misunderstood; who was failed by society which should have given him a job; and was a romantic rejected by his life’s love. Get out the violins and flowers. You will think he’s saint who stumbled.

Instead, he’s evil. A criminal who preys on the weak. To satisfy his blood lust. He deserves to be removed from the gene pool. Just as he did Ms. Tori.

I’d suggest a “must carry” law. And, mandatory gun training and swimming lessons for everyone. Especially girls. Since they seem to get the shit end of the stick.

Gandhi said “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” Perhaps, he was wrong. Their self-delusion that they could legislate away the inalienable right to life and propagating that idea around the world will be the blackest. What they did to India was just a subset of that misdeed.

To arms, to arms, the British are coming. Even worse, their misguided idea have seeped into “liberal” minds here.

We need to revise that to the foolish idiots are coming to impose their will on us. Who care what costume they wear? All though lets hope they are nice and bright so were can aim at an easy target.

Sorry, Ms. Tori, you should have had a fighting chance. You should have been able to defend yourself with a true “equalizer”.

More importantly, we need to make Vermont-style carry the law of the land here. Nothing like “Ms Tori” should happen here. Arm all the women and girls. I trust them to make good decisions.

# # # # #


RANT: Recall the Ambassador to Kenya now

Monday, July 26, 2010

http://www.lifenews.com/int1602.html

Obama Ambassador to Kenya Openly Endorses Proposed Pro-Abortion Constitution
from LifeNews.com Pro-Life Headlines by news@LifeNews.com (Steven Ertelt)

*** begin quote ***

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — After initially saying the Obama administration is not technically supporting the proposed pro-abortion constitution in Kenya and insisting it is merely supporting the voting process itself, United States Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger is now openly supporting it.

*** end quote ***

Excuse me!

Why are “we” taking any position in what any foreign country puts in their “constitution”?

Especially when the issue of abortion is involved.

How dare they use tax money, wealth stolen from taxpayers who find the issue morally abhorrent, to push that abomination in their name!

This ambassador should be recalled immediately and replaced.

# # # # #


GOVEROTRAGEOUS: Adoption should be done by the Churches

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/gatto5.1.1.html

‘I’m a Saboteur’
by Daniel H. Pink

*** begin quote ***

How do you unlock that inborn genius?

When the mind is tested against something unfamiliar, it grows in front of your eyes. Adopted children have a horrible track record in adult life, and yet they often measure on IQ tests about 20 points higher than their equals in their biological family. For years, the medical community tried to figure out what could account for this. Just to transfer from your natural parent increases your intelligence? Well, sure. You’re in this desperate situation; you don’t even have enough language to find your way out. You’re looking around a lot more than you would if it was all Mother Goose.

*** end quote ***

I never knew this but it makes sense. Survival demands adaption. The question becomes how do we get children adopted earlier and seamlessly. The current system, run by our old “friend” the Gooferment, needs to be replaced. By Churches?

Now how do we make the Gooferment give up power?

# # # # #


RANT: It’s always about the “something else”

Monday, July 5, 2010

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/106887-health-law-risks-turning-away-sick

Health law risks turning away sick
By Julian Pecquet – 07/01/10 07:13 PM ET

*** begin quote ***

The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.

Critics of the $5 billion high-risk pool program insist it will run out of money before Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the program sunsets and health plans can no longer discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

*** and ***

“Along with that, we can work with the states to adjust their benefit structure, the deductibles, the co-pays, the overall plan structure to address some of those cost drivers, again to help the plan make it to 2014, when it will no longer be needed.”

In addition, Popper said, many people won’t be able to afford to participate in the program since premiums will range between about $140 and $900 a month, depending on applicants’ age and where they live. HHS estimates that at least 200,000 people will be in the program at any one time. To be eligible, applicants have to be citizens or nationals of the United States or be lawfully present; have a pre-existing medical condition; and have been uninsured for at least six months before applying for the high-risk pool plan.

*** and ***

If it looks like too many people are signing up — states will get monthly updates on how many people they can cover with the money they have left — there’s always the option of turning people down.

The bill “does give the secretary authority to limit enrollment in the plan … nationally or on a state-by-state basis,” Popper said. “So that is present, but at this point, we’re starting with no one in the plan as of today … so we don’t see that happening anytime soon.”

*** end quote ***

One giant criticism of BHO44 and his Obamacare is that it had muddled objectives. Was it about “health”, “health care”, “health care insurance”, or something else. Us, tin foil hats, believe it’s the “something else”.

By not being specific about their objectives, they don’t have to be specific about their results. We, The People have allowed our elected representatives to get away with this muddled thinking. And, as such, we once again find ourselves faced with a confused mess. Argh!

I believe this is all about “control”. By centralizing one seventh of the economy, the politicians and bureaucrats are in control of our lives. By controlling “health care” and “health care insurance”, they control us.

Remember the three “laws” of political motivation: (1) reward your friends; (2) punish your enemies; and (3) feather your own nest. Clearly, this wins on all three fronts.

By controlling “health care” and “health care insurance”, they create a voting block. Look what Social Security and Medicare has done to create a “senior citizen” voting block for the Democratic Party. Look at Florida. Created by Social Security. That’s the power to reward yor friends — the incumbent politicians. Never mind the endless opportunities for graft, corruption and outright theft for the .

By controlling “health care” and “health care insurance”, they have won a war with the Catholic Church and Right To Life groups over abortion. The “sacrament” of the modern liberal feminist, enshrined by Roe v Wade, will now be fully funded to the abhorrence of Right To Life taxpaying advocates. That’s punishing your enemy — the Religious Right.

By controlling “health care” and “health care insurance”, they have created endless bureaucratic positions. Of course, to be filled by “them”, their friends ‘n’ family, and their supporters. And, created countless opportunities for lobbyists to fill their pockets as they create loopholes, exceptions, and prohibitions. That’s feathering, with some pretty comfortable feathers.

Silly Taxpayer, you didn’t think this was about anything as trivial as helping sick people now did you?

By pulling the Sheeple’s own wool over the Sheeple’s eyes, they are able to sheer the Sheeple some more.

See if the objective was “health”, “health care”, or “health care insurance”, then it would be relatively easy and cheap to address the issue. For “health”, address the root cause of poor health — we have to make it a national priority to find out what that was. (I’d say “gooferment skrules”, but that’s another story.) If it was “health care”, then perhaps better records, uniform forms, or — shocked hush — eliminating medical licensing. If it is was “health care insurance” slash cost, then we could change the tax law to make everyone their own subchapter S copr and make cost of earning a living deductible to all. If it is was “health care insurance” slash cost, then the gooferment could just buy poor people health insurance as part of the federal health insurance system. (Whoopi Goldberg had it right: “What the hell! I just want what you <Congressmen> got. <for health insurance>. Way to nail the issue, Whoopster!)

See it’s always about something else!

# # # # #


POLITICAL: OBH44 has chuptzah about Kenyan Constitution

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

http://www.lifenews.com/int1564.html

Barack Obama Praises Kenya’s Draft Constitution Allowing Unlimited Abortions
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor
June 3, 2010

*** begin quote ***

Nairobi, Kenya (LifeNews.com) — President Barack Obama has come under fire from pro-life members of Congress for his administration potentially illegally spending as much as $10 million promoting the new pro-abortion constitution in Kenya. Now, in a new interview, Obama himself carefully urged Kenya residents to support it.

Obama officials were thought to have spent $2 million but Rep. Chris Smith says that figure could exceed $10 million.

A new interview conducted Tuesday with the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC) has Obama actively promoting the constitution, which would have the effect of overturning the nation’s pro-life laws that prohibit most abortions.

*** end quote ***

Are you kidding me? This is a joke. Right!

Two or ten matters not. Why is Taxpayers’ Money being spent on this?

As a Pro-life Pro-choice fat old white guy injineer, I don’t want to pay for this immoral activity. Abortion is a horrible event. To have the Gooferment involved in it is abhorrent. It’s a terrible choice that a woman has to make. In a perfect world, we’d have lots of resources to make it unnecessary. (That’s the pro-life part of me!) In that perfect world, the Gooferment would have an interest in preserving the life of a future citizen. But we are far from perfect. The Gooferment should butt out because it can’t even find it’s own ass in dark closet! Best leave it to the woman and those she chooses to involve. (That’s the pro-choice part of me!)

Us, little L libertarians, are pro-choice on everything.

(1) Doesn’t OBH44 have enough to do here in this country?

(2) Why are we meddling in Kenya’s affairs?

(3) If he wants to run Kenya, he should grab his birth certificate and run for office there!

(4) As a pro-life, I object to using my tax dollars on something so morally offensive.

(5) As a pro-choicer, we in the USA should MYOB!

Argh!

# # # # #


POLITICAL: Where does OBH44 get off using tax money for propaganda

Monday, June 14, 2010

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6398.html

Obama Administration to Spend $125M to Defend Pro-Abortion Health Care Law
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor
June 7, 2010

*** begin quote ***

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The Obama administration is unveiling a new $125 million publicity campaign over the next five years to promote the pro-abortion health care law. Obama officials are relying on a pro-abortion former senator and a former official of a top pro-abortion group to make the case for the law.

*** end quote ***

Argh!

Where does the gooferment get off using tax money to propagandize the electorate to convince them they are wrong!

It’s immoral.

# # # # #


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,062 other followers

%d bloggers like this: