Last week, after I had deposited a check and paid some bills, I tallied my recent payments and found that I was a little behind for the month. Well, I figured I’ll just be a little more careful for the balance of the year. I wasn’t in that much of a hole. But, as I looked at that final sum, I wondered how I could have fallen short when I had just put some money in the bank, not much, but enough to more than cover that apparent deficit.
I didn’t think much of it for a while, but then decided to check my math. It turns out that instead of adding the total amount of those checks ($216), I had subtracted them. Then, I redid my calculations, adding where I should have subtracted and came out $432 ahead of my previous total.
Probably because I had accepted (albeit briefly) the lesser amount, I suddenly felt richer. I wouldn’t have to scrimp on the holiday gifts I had yet to buy for friends and family members. That evening, I went out that night to Barnes & Noble — and with a coupon in hand where I saw something that I knew one of my closest friends would like, but cost a good deal more than I had intended to spend. Well, feeling flush, I got it for her.
And I’m still ahead of where I had feared I might be financially just a few hours previously.
It’s kind of weird to think that had I not made the mistake I might not have bought the gift I did for my friend even though I could have afforded it. It’s just that bracing myself for a smaller balance had made me realize how much money I really did have.
Maybe there was some other force at work that day. Whatever it is, I’m grateful for the error and will soon find out if my friend is as well.
You’re supposed to feel dirt poor considering the economy allegedly is going to hell in a handbasket and nobody can afford a handbasket. You’re supposed to be one step away from disaster with a broken ARM, even though 94% of the folks are still paying their mortgages on time. You’re supposed to be wishing you could afford such fancy fare as Ramen noodles, but feel guilty because there are people who can’t afford to eat dirt, nevermind all the government programs and food programs out there.
You’re supposed to be in a fetal position on the floor wallowing in guilt and misery. Why aren’t you taking the bait of the doom & gloom drive-by liberal media?
I sort of relate. My son gave me his paycheck to deposit for him, but when I got to the bank, I couldn’t find it. So, I wrote him a check out of my own account and deposited it. I looked carefully for his check, but couldn’t find it anywhere in the house. Then, I got to work this morning and it was on my check. Yea!
On a contrary note, there’s a commercial running in these parts for a local jeweler. It tells women, “Men are clueless when it comes to giving gifts, so just tell your man exactly what piece of jewelry you want. Or, better yet, just buy it yourself, because this Christmas, it’s all about YOU!.” It makes me want to scream “No, it’s not!” but that’s yr materialist, narcissistic boomer mentality in action for you.
Then, I got to work this morning and it was on my check. should read “was on my desk.”
I’ve been out of work since July. However … my ten-year-old car’s paid off, I don’t go out to eat everyday (except the occasional breakfast at the local greasy spoon), and I don’t buy a lot of things.
I borrow movies from the library rather than buy/rent them, though I do want to rent WAITRESS this week. My gym is an inexpensive neighborhood gym. (You know the type: people may not know your name, but they know your face and they always say, “Hi!”)
My unemployment keeps me flush, and I even have a little save to pay for some classes I’m taking.
In short, I DON’T live beyond my means. And, though I consider myself pretty good at math, I use a calculator to balance my checkbook. And the bank STILL says I have $200 more then my checkbook says. I use that as my overdraft protection. 😮
On another note, SA’s King Abdullah has pardoned the rape victim, so Ian and the funky bunch won’t have that moral arguement anymore.
5: KY will find the only noteworthy thing to comment about is that your comment is off-topic.
#6
And that King Abdullah would behead me for it.
This just proves why Republicans can’t balance a budget. LOL
It’s ironic that HT would say that right after the congressional Democrats backed down and agreed to the lower spending level the president wanted. Democrats wanted $22 Billion MORE than Bush in domestic spending.
And they still managed to stuff 10,000 earmarks into the bill. I wonder if Hillary’s Woodstock museum made the cut.
It does just the opposite. When Dan thought he was short, he didn’t spend the money. He only spent it when he realized that actually had the money in the bank. A Democrat would have run up quite a bill figuring that he’d get someone else to cover it down the line.
(High Fives Leah)
“Democrat would have run up quite a bill figuring that he’d get someone else to cover it down the line.”
Excuse me?!?!?
To quote the great communicator “that dog won’t hunt”
Conservatives have proven they are failures at fiscal responsibility.
They borrowed and borrowed then borrowed some more! Now my niece and nephew will be paying off their federal debt their whole lives.
Nope the urban myth of thrifty conservatives has gone the way of the dodo
Bush is without a doubt the most reckless spending president the country has had since LBJ. Which is why it speaks volumes that the Sorocrat congress wanted to spend $22 billion more than he did on domestic programs.
Thank God they won’t be saddled with the Trillions from the “war on poverty”, Medicare and Socialist Stupidity, eh? If you elect the liberals and their largest tax increase in history (again), you’re niece and nephew will pay for it many times over including after they die. Can’t leave any of it to their kids. The cash belongs to Uncle Sugar. That and St. Hillary probably will repeat her husband “I can spend you’re money better than you can (you fcuking moron)!”
But hey, if we get Hillary’s Socialist healthcare, nobody will want it. They can scrape up the money to get it in countires with real healthcare.
And, by God, they’ll have rich lawyers and union thugs (er, bosses), a castrated military (once again) and castrated intel community (again).
Oooh! And Kos (if that is his real name) is dumping Harry Reid like last night’s burrito.
I’ve vowed not to check my American Express balance until the New Year. I expect a nice note from Fed Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke any day now thanking me from saving the US from recession via my Christmas shopping.
Got a point, there. Thrifty conservatives exist, they’re just not in Congress.
Americans don’t want a thrifty Congress… most of the people whining about the debt left to The Children are first in line when it comes to cutting the dole.
The problem with Medicare, Social Security and the like, is people want ‘em. No sane person wants to return to the days of old people who worked their whole lives having to go into poverty.
That is the problem that conservatives face and why the repubs did noting to fix those programs. People want them!
At some point, you have to pay for them and taxes are the only way, unless of course you are a conservative and just want to borrow your way into popularity….
Just like the larger military you are pining for, its something that has to be paid for.
Its common sense. Probably why conservatives don’t get it
As a dues-paying member of the Santa Brigade (I wear a pin every freaking day from the start of Advent to Christmas), I say there are few times in life where we know for sure a recipient will like/appreciate a gift. If you ever encounter such a time, go for it, regardless of your mathematical abilities and/or bank account. There’s nothing sweeter than an appreciated gift!!!!
The problem with Medicare, Social Security and the like, is people want ‘em.
Well of course. After years of liberals convincing everybody that they’re entitled to it, it’s their right no matter the cost. Why the hell would anybody take responsibility for themselves when Uncle Sugar will to it supposedly for free?
No sane, intelligent person would. The would do what it takes, on their own accord, to not wind up in poverty. They would take, what the liberals HATE, RESPONSIBILITY for themselves and make sure that never happens.
But of course liberal snake oil salesmen push exactly what you’re saying that You’re too stupid to make it on your own. Uncle Sugar will do it for you and folks take the lazy, easy way. Nevermind that they get screwed all the way.
Bush tried to fix Socialist Stupidity, but your liberal masters lied to the American people about it and frightened them into opposing it. Typical liberal fearmongering. His plan has already been done and people have made more money than they ever would have on Socialist Stupidity. It’s worked everytime it’s been tried, but liberals couldn’t stand the notion that they wouldn’t have something to serve pork out of or produce fake economic surpluses from.
Not to mention that it was voluntary. The liberals lied about that too. So it seems to me that liberals don’t really give a fetid damn about people being in poverty especially given that they are the ones who put people there and do everything in their power to KEEP them there.
There’s a huge difference between want and need. I want a 60″ 1080i plasma with the Bose surround, but do I need it? Of course not. And guess who would be responsible (there’s that word again) for making sure that I got one. Of course I could go the liberal route and head down to Rent-A-Center and pay, at least, twice as much, but what kind of sense would that make?
No, it’s not the only way. Cutting taxes results in record revenue everytime it’s tried. It worked when Kennedy did it, it worked when Reagan did it and it worked when Bush did it. We were in a bind in the interim though because some idiot created a “proposed surplus” and passed on a recession. If you want to make damn sure to kill that record revenue to the treasury, kill the economy and keep people dependent on Uncle Sugar, you pass massive tax increases. There’s no “soaking the rich” because it soaks everybody.
Gutting it to the point they can’t afford to buy bullets doesn’t make it better. Further, it’s not necessarily a “larger” military we need.
Considering what liberals call “common sense” really isn’t. Only liberals consider a welfare state “common sense”. Only liberals consider cutting off revenue “common sense”. Liberalism FAILS everytime it’s tried and we’re all miserable from it. They keep wanting to do the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
Every program liberals have handed us has been a colossal failure and costs us ass loads of money. Why in the hell do we want more of the same? That’s not common sense. That is idiocy.
#12
They borrowed and borrowed then borrowed some more!
#18
At some point, you have to pay for them and taxes are the only way, unless of course you are a conservative and just want to borrow your way into popularity…
And yet the current public debt/GDP ratio is about 36%. At the end of FY 2000 is was about 35%. When should I begin to worry?
More right wing ranting about Social Security. *yawn* I note that there were no changes in the six years you had control of all three branches of government. This is just an issue they use to fire up part of the base but don’t actually plan to do anything with. SS is a popular program and the GOP knows they can’t touch it without getting burned.
Yes, cutting taxes does lead to some increase in revenue. Just never enough to offset the Republican spending increases so we get bigger and bigger deficits. Now if you would cut spending and taxes at the same time (God forbid!) that would yield some real results.
BTW, when Kennedy cut taxes the top income tax rate was 52%. Yes, that’s right, Eisenhower and a Republican Congress used to tax the top earners at a MUCH higher rate than any Democrat has suggested since Kennedy cut the rate.
Here’s a handy piece of advice: put away 10% of your gross pay every paycheck. Pay yourself. Never (NEVER) pay only the minimum balance on your credit cards. Pay all cards in full. If your can’t afford it, don’t buy it.
Eisenhower and a Republican Congress used to tax the top earners at a MUCH higher rate than any Democrat has suggested since Kennedy cut the rate.
Now, HT, try a little honesty. First of all, the top rate under JFK was not 52%, it was 94%. And even with JFK’s cuts, it was still 70% Second, who made rates that high? Do the initials FDR mean anything to you? (The 94% tax rate became effective in 1945). Third, who finally did succeed in cutting the top rates and ushering in the last generation of prosperity. Hint: Initials RR. Not a Democrat.
Its common sense. Probably why conservatives don’t get it
Common sense would tell me this:
1) If I start working at age 22 and retire at age 70, Social Security will collect 12.4% of my gross income (6.2% individual + 6.2% employer contribution to the payroll tax) for 48 years.
2) Based on their expected paydown, I will receive 33% of my working gross income per year for the next ten years after I retire (since they assume I will die ten years after retiring).
3) Do the math:
They pay 33% of my gross income per year x 10 years = 3.3 years worth of income.
They collected 12.4% of my gross income per year for 48 years = 5.95 years worth of income.
In other words, I paid them for over two-and-a-half years worth of income more than they are planning to have to pay me.
Meanwhile, that money, which I earned, is lost to me. I didn’t get to save it; it’s been taken away because Democrats need to buy, among many examples, clean needles for junkies, give them free healthcare, and ensure they have a pension.
What I want is the option to opt out of Social Security.
Yeah libs generally could care less that their entitlements are colossal failures. It’s the thought that counts after all.
And yes, there was an attempt to fix it and let the people have control over their money. However the lying, fear mongering liberals scared the hell out of the public once they realized they would have less to get their grubby fingers on.
It’s telling, HT, that the prospect of a Socialist Stupidity collapse bores you and you’re unconcerned that a liberal entitlement is screwing the people big time.
Thanks for showing us what you really are.
Further, Rush is right. If there’s a pile of excrement, liberals will step right in it.
NDT, don’t confuse the lib with math and logic.
You missed my point. For all the talk about privatizing social security I notice that there was no move on that issue while Republicans were in control of the government. It’s just an issue to get votes. Not something they actually intended to do anything about. (And honestly it was ridiculous. A private account system with 300,000,000 users each with separate access?)
We have more impending financial problems (not that I don’t care about SSI problems coming in 2040, I do). We aren’t even out of the subprime mess yet. Look for more layoff after the first of the year.
Here on Wall Street there’s a joke going around. Citigroup’s credit is so bad that they had to take out a subprime mortgage to stay afloat. I guess it’s only funny if you work for a rival bank.
A private account system with 300,000,000 users each with separate access?
Something the private sector handles pretty well.
Well gee, that’s because the Democrats did everything they could to kill even discussing the idea.
It’s amazing the things you forget.. are you that partisan?
The idea was unpopular and Republicans didn’t ever really intend to pass the bill anyway. The Democrats were in the minority. They didn’t kill the bill. The Republicans never even tried to pass it.
Just admit that this isn’t an issue taken seriously by the party leadership. It’s just something they promise people like you for your vote.
Thanks again, liberals.
So they were sitting on the sidelines keeping their mouths shut? Bullshit! You know better than that. They may have been in the minority, but that’s not stopped them from doing everything they could to undermine the administration starting with Tom Daschle.