3629 What debate?

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Money cannot buy love, but it can put you in a good bargaining position.

-------------------------------------------------------

Yeah.  The debate.  I yelled at Obama to talk faster, more forcefully, and please please throw in a few quotable lines among those long dissertations, just one would do for cripes sake!  I yelled at Romney to quit interrupting and stop with the pandering.  I yelled at Lerher to take control, damn it, do your job, stop letting Romney blow right over you!

I didn't learn much.  I'm left with a few questions, like does Romney know the difference between "compete" and "collude" when talking about businesses?  Given his background, I'd wager not.  He might even figure that without regulation and oversight, big business will feel a proper social responsibility to serve their public.  (Unfortunately, big business considers their public to consist only of shareholders.)

And how come nobody anywhere, not Obama last night (I was yelling at him to ask) nor commentators or columnists today, how come nobody has asked how Romney's plan of turning over a lot of federal functions to the states results in lower taxes?  Yeah, maybe it would reduce federal taxes if the federal government isn't paying that bill, but what is the result on state taxes?  How does it help me if my federal income tax drops by 20%, but my state income tax and sales tax double?  Why didn't Obama ask?

I forget exactly when it was, but a few decades ago a lot of social service programs (including medicaid, foodstamps,  education, and so on) were fully funded and administered by the states.  The result was that the quantity and quality varied enormously.  The secondary result was that people in need and dependent on a program moved to states that had better services - with the result that they overwhelmed the system in that state.  Federal involvement leveled the field.  At least, that's my impression.  Have we not learned from that?

Remember a while back when conservatives were agitating to privatize social security, turn it over to the stock market and other investment?  I was yelling then about nobody remembering why social security was started in the first place.  Hey, remember October of 1929, when folks who had saved all their lives suddenly found it had all disappeared, and they had nothing?  Social security was meant to ensure that nothing like that ever happened again, that no matter what happened on Wall Street, they would at least not starve.  So why on earth would anyone want to hang that safety net back on Wall Street?  Heh heh.  Fate in its wisdom saw fit to teach us again why not.  Notice nobody talks much anymore about privatization.

Romney says he'd halt funding of, among other things, Amtrak.  Yeah, Amtrak has some problems.  (So does the deteriorating highway system.)  Um, we desperately need better mass transit systems.   We don't need to kill off what little we have.  You can travel all over Europe by train.  You don't even need a car at all in England.  What the hell???

I just get so frustrated when people don't learn from history, and keep wanting to try things that we've already found don't work.  Hey, I have an idea - let's not declare war on anyone for a while!  Did you know that the recent wars have cost gazillions of dollars, all of which was BORROWED!  And then Romney's party didn't want to raise the debt ceiling, when it was Bush's personal wars that got it so high?  Does anyone else find it interesting that Romney wants to give the military more than they want?  Is there something he's not telling us?  (Why didn't Obama ask, for me?)  Is THAT his plan to increase employment - start another war and hire all the unemployed as gun-fodder?

Ah.  Stop.  I hope for more from the veep debate.  Biden won't be as polite, and Ryan won't be so cool.
.

3338 We know where our priorities are

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

You can chill with the owls at night, or you can fly with the eagles in the morning,
but likely not both.

-------------------------------------------------------

Read this article from the Miami Herald:

True cost of Afghan, Iraq wars is anyone’s guess

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/15/v-fullstory/2360960/true-cost-of-afghan-iraq-wars.html#ixzz1VIMQsJSX


---------------------------------------

The averaged-out cost per service member in Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is now approaching $700,000 per year, while school districts are cutting budgets and firing teachers. One month's war budget could launch six space shuttles.

And in the meantime, Gramma eats Ken-L Ration and Grampa can't afford his blood pressure pills, Mom and Pop can't make the house payments, and Junior can't find a job, and Congress has voted to make that a lot worse.

But don't worry - the jet setters, corporations, and CEOs are doing fine, and they'll take care of us.
.

1877 Gloom and Doom

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

[Rant on]

I'm reading a lot about how people can't afford the necessities and how it's going to get worse. About how families have to decide between filling the gas tank or filling the grocery cart. Mostly, it ticks me off.

Ok, yeah, there are families that are living hand-to-mouth, day-to-day, and they're not the ones that bug me. It's the ones that make bad financial decisions to start with that really get me going.

The ones with the huge cars, and iPods, and Sirius, and fancy cell phones with expensive phone plans and who don't pay attention to how much they use them, and "name" athletic shoes, and rotating wardrobes. Like the recently seen couple who "cannot afford health insurance", with the kids on Wii on a 5-foot-wide TV in the background of the interview.

People might say, "Well, you're financially comfortable. You don't understand."

These are usually people whose grocery carts are full of snacks and expensive ready-prepared foods, at $7 per person per meal, instead of the fresh vegetables and meats that will run $2-3 per meal. The same folks who will pay $6 for a cup of fancy coffee, and pay for it out of a designer purse. Please! You can afford groceries. You just can't afford YOUR groceries, and you certainly can't afford that purse.

Some people seem to think that they need everything new that comes along. If something is advertised as "better", faster, bigger, they think they need it. Who really needs an SUV?! A Hummer?! Come on! Sheep led by corporate advertising, that's who.

All bull poopy. How do you GET comfortable, and BE comfortable with what you have? You understand the difference between "want" and "need". That's how.

I don't need cable. I don't need an iPod, or a phone that takes pictures, or texting on my cell phone. In fact, I don't need the cell phone. The only time I turn it on is when I travel, and it's more for the convenience of others than my own.

My car is five years old. I bought it used two years ago for $9,000. My thinking included not only the cost of the car, but the ongoing cost to insure it. It works just fine - more than meets my needs.

I have a lot of clothes and shoes, I'll admit. But what most people don't notice is that a large portion of my closet is ten, twenty, or even thirty years old, because I don't buy "fashion", I buy classic. And I see no need to pay retail.

My house is furnished in antiques, purchased at local estate auctions for less than I'd pay for new furniture of equivalent quality and craftsmanship. It's sturdy, strong, and never goes out of fashion.

When Jay was job-hunting around the country, we looked at houses hither and yon. He'd point to McMansions, and say, "We can afford that." My response was always, "That's more space than we need, and I'd have to clean it all! No way!" I cannot understand why people buy more house than they need. And don't tell me it's an investment. It's an investment only if you pay cash. If you've got a mortgage, you'll spend more than you'll ever make on it - unless you pay the mortgage off early, which I have always done, and Daughter and Hercules are doing now (I've taught her well).

Yes, I have four television sets, but I didn't pay more than $200 for any of them.

Yes, I do treat myself well. I do buy some things I merely want, like my Pleo Clyde, and the recent Waterford lamp. (Note that in neither case did it cost more than half retail.) And one of these days I will present myself with a swoopy sportscar, just 'cause I want it.

That's the one argument I have over and over with Piper. He chides me for never spending principal, only income. He says I could afford almost anything I want. I respond that I have everything I need, precisely because I don't buy everything I want.

[Rant off]
.

866 Financial Fussing

Tuesday, September 5, 2006

Piper called this morning while I was out, left a message that he was going to be out of town off and on over most of the next two weeks, so if I need anything, I'd have to catch him today or tomorrow. Since I'm going to have to ask for more money to pay the estimated taxes on the 15th, and it takes a week for the check to arrive, I guess I'm going to have to figure out today how much I need. This is embarrassing. The check I got last month when I bought the car was supposed to be enough to cover the taxes, too.

I've been trying this year to live on just the Company retirement check and the SS widow's pension, to see if I could do it, to see how much I really need. I guess I need more than those two. Piper says I'm doing fine, that I haven't withdrawn any principal, it's all interest, and that I should consider the roof replacement as an unusual expense, but really, when you own a house, stuff like that has to be figured into the budget. Next year it'll be replacing the air conditioning and the deck, and landscaping of the woods, and eventually I won't be able to ignore the driveway any longer. It's frustrating.

Ok, now I feel guilty for fussing over money. There are people who live paycheck to paycheck, and if they lose their job they're in big trouble. Daughter might point out that if I'm really so concerned, I didn't REALLY have to fly first class to Florida. I didn't even really have to go to Florida. "It's false fussing. It's unbecoming. Shut up."

Yeah, I've got enough that I don't have to worry about anything. And now enough of it is in safe investments that I don't have to worry about it disappearing. But fussing like this is precisely why I have it in the first place!

Some of the clothes in my closet are over 30 years old, and I still wear them. I've never paid more than $30 for a pair of shoes. I've never paid more than $15 for a watch. I buy a lot of my clothes at Wal-Mart or on eBay. I don't understand nail salons - they have created a market where no need exists. I'm smart enough to not pay a small fortune for fads and show and competition, stuff that loses value. I'll pay for real value. I'll pay for comfort and convenience. I won't pay to impress someone else, or for flash. And I'll especially pay for investment (that explains wearing an estate-auction diamond ring with Salvation Army resale clothes). I've never understood why a middle class woman would spend more than $20 for a purse. That makes no absolutely no sense to me. I hear about someone paying $350 for a purse (a purse!), and my immediate thought is that she should have paid $20 and invested the other $330 in a decent blue chip stock.

So, I fuss.

Piper has seen the house (outside). He's all excited about the location, layout, and grounds. He says he can tell me where I can invest $30,000, and it will increase the value of the house by $100,000 or more. (For some strange reason, he wants me to replace the siding.) I asked him why would I want to increase the value? All that will do is increase the taxes, and that makes absolutely no sense. I can't see any reason to increase the value if I'm not planning to sell, and I don't plan to sell. So all that would do is cost me $30,000, plus an additional $7,000 a year in taxes every year thereafter, all to impress the neighbors? No thanks. (This from my money manager? Sheesh! I'm glad he's good at picking bonds and mutual funds.)

Maybe it's my blood heritage.