BOY

And he will be here July 29th.  I will be very interested to see when he actually arrives as both of my other two kids arrived on their due dates.

Ok, so I am not really trying to turn Thrifty Mommy into a political blog but there are some things that are just griping me!!

This stimulus package is a big one.  These ideas are just mine and feel free to disagree as I am really wanting someone to explain the other side because I am just not getting it right now.

• If we don’t have the money to spend, why are we spending it?  I realize that we need to do something.  However, I am of the mind that if we don’t liek the practices of a bank, then we don’t do any business with that bank.  If we feel that the auto industry is not being responsible with their finances, then we don’t buy their cars.  That is what bankruptcy restructuring is for.
• If it doesn’t create a job in the next 6 months, it shouldn’t be in the bill.  I don’t see any reason why $650 billion dollars is in the stimulus package to fund the digital TV switch.
• If it needs to be funded by the government, it should be passed through committee and voted on it’s merit instead of being pushed through in the stimulus package.  I am not against giving $300 million to combat violence against women, but it should go through committee and be voted on by it’s own merit.  Don’t bypass the system and sneak it in here.
• Every child needs to be taken care of.  But $2 billion for child care assistance should be passed on it’s own merit.
• Funding college scholarships will benefit in the long run but it won’t bring on new jobs in the next 6 months.  Deal with it separate and find a way to pay for it that won’t bring us further in debt.
• $4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities” should be a local governance issue.  Not a federal issue and not here.
• Come on!!! $448 billion for a new home for the Department of Homeland Defense?  Yes, it will bring more construction jobs, but why does it have to be here?  Why can’t you pay for it in the budget for DHD?
• $350 million for Agriculture Department computers? That will make their jobs easier but it won’t add a single job or stimulate any economic progress.

I think some of these spending bills are good and will increase productivity but they shouldn’t be in THIS bill.   Here are some good ideas that are in the bill that I think are good ideas.

• Money to rebuild bridges and roads
• Money to create jobs in the private sector in the next 6 months - not 2 years from now
• Giving the people back their money to spend how they want. I can spend it much better  than they can.

My financial background has taught me a few things that I do try to live by.

• If I can’t pay for it in cash, I either need to save for it or do without.
• If I can’t afford to pay it back, I don’t need to borrow - a loan or credit
• If I can’t afford to save a little each month, I am spending too much.

So please tell me where you think I am missing the boat because I totally don’t uderstand why if we are in such a deep hole already, why we need to spend $1.3 trillion after interest.

Karen wrote a post about the mom who had octuplets in California.  Let me be politically incorrect here… Be very careful how quickly you ask the government to step in and help those kids.  No matter what our opinion of these kids and their mom is, do you really want the government to step in and take them simply because there are too many in your opinion?  I am pregnant with my third child and have had many comments directed at me that I should have stopped with my perfect family: husband, wife, daughter, and son.

Who is to say that in a few years, if we let the government step in with this mom, then they can’t step in with my family and say that we have too many kids.  There might be a family with a bigger house, more money, better private health care, and more family support that can take better care of my kids than I can.  If you let them step in here, when there is technically no abuse present, then they will eventually take the right to dictate my life as well.

I agree that if this young lady can’t pay for her kids, then she shouldn’t have had so many on a voluntary basis.  However, who is to say that if you have more than 1 child in 5 years and you fall on hard times, that the government, instead of giving you money and food stamps, won’t just take your kids and put them in the system because the feel they can better take care of them than you can.  You guys are walking on a very fine tight rope here.  As long as those kids don’t have bruises, aren’t being verbally abused, and are eating well and being nourished properly, let her raise those kids in private.  You might not agree with her, but is her right to do so.

Some of you are already saying that I am off my rocker and the government will never go that far.  CAREFUL!  They already tell your doctor how, when, and to what extent they can treat you.  They have set ridiculous limits on treatments recently that have severely limited my scope of practice in the local cath lab.  My patients are suffering embarrassing accidents and strained bladders due to the new restrictions Medicare has placed on health care facilities.  They are nit picking and not taking care of the pillaging that is going on in the financial side of health care.  They should be much more concerned with fraud than my capability to ease the discomfort of my patients while using proven methods that have works for decades and are very appreciated by my patients.

I promise you, you do not want the government stepping in any further than they already have!  As a matter of fact, I would love to see them step back.  If I think a bank or store is not being run improperly, then I choose to not give them my money.  That is the way to get rid of the badly run businesses.  Don’t ask the government to do it.  They evidently can’t pay their own taxes and figure out who is legal and illegal and can’t remember their own addresses and can’t stay faithful to their own spouses.  Why in the world do you want them taking care of your family and health care and your taxes and your paycheck and your retirement etc…

There are some issues that I prefer not to speak about. I try not to get involved in a bunch of drama. However, the issue with the mom that had IVF in order to have more children is under a lot of speculation.

Nadya Suleman is a 33-year-old single mom who already had six children from IVF. She underwent fertility treatments again in hopes of having more children. Nadya used the same fertility specialist for all of her children. He already knew she had six children, yet he continued to treat her for infertility and this time he implanted eight (or six?) embryos. Now Nadya’s doctor is under scrutiny for implanting such a large amount of embryos. According to doctors, medical guidelines state to implant only two embryos.

Nadya also denies accepting government assistance, but now it has been confirmed that she receives food stamps and disability for three of her children. NBC chief medical editor Dr. Nancy Snyderman has estimated the cost of delivering the infants and caring for them until they are healthy enough to leave the hospital at $1.5 million to $3 million. Nadya defends her actions by saying that she was an only child and always dreamed of having a very large family.

Normally, I would stay out of this and let her live her life, but it seems as though Nadya’s choices are affecting more than herself. What do you think about this situation?

More videos can be seen at MSNBC.com.

My husband and I are proud to announce the newest addition to our family should arrive the end of July.  Turkey Butt has decided that it will be another girl.  If not, we might have an issue because, once here, the new baby will not be going back in!  HAHA!

Just thought I would share the news.  Merry Christmas to us!

Earlier this week, I told you of what my local consignment store said about the new CPSIA law enacted to keep our kids safe from lead.  Then I got another email.  So I thought I would let you know what they said.

Dear Valued Customer,

We received great news from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), clarifying the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act  that goes into effect on February 10, 2009.    From the statement -

“The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children’s products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. Sellers of used children’s products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards.”

“The new safety law does not require resellers to test children’s products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold.  However, resellers cannot sell children’s products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content…  Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties.”

We always have been and will continue to be committed to buying & selling product that meets the standards supplied to us by the CPSC.  To continue to ensure the safety of your children, we will not buy or sell items noted in the statement -

“recalled children’s products, children’s products that will contain lead such as children’s jewelry, painted wooden or metal toys, flimsily made toys that are easily breakable into small parts and dolls and stuffed toys that have buttons, eyes, noses or other small parts that are not securely fastened and could present a choking hazard for young children. ”

We are thrilled that we will be continuing to provide you with an outlet to buy quality, safe, gently used children’s merchandise.   We are also committed to providing to you an opportunity to get cash for children’s items you no longer need, and the ability to trade for items you do need.

We are committed to buying & selling product that meets these standards, and as we always have, we will continue to closely monitor CPSC recalls and advisories.

This might surprise some of you but if you can earn $1 million dollars, then I say go for it!  Make sure you are smart with your money but spend what you want.  When you spend money, someone else has a job and someone is paying their bills.  So by all means, if you are financially secure, then share a little.

However, $100,000 a month in RENT! Now that is wasteful to me.  Michael Jackson has moved back into the Untied States and has chosen his residence.  For years, we have heard that Michael Jackson’s health is failing and he is broke.  So when I heard that he moved into a Bel Air mansion and signed a 1 year lease.  The house has:

• 7 bedrooms,
• 13 bathrooms (how many bathrooms do you need to clean?)
• a theater
• wine cellar and tasting room
• 12 fireplaces

Can anyone say “overkill”!  I don’t remember him having 6 kids living with him and even if he did, he can’t monitor 12 fireplaces and all those kids.

When I say share the wealth, I mean go out to dinner or pay $100 for an entire outfit.  Not $100,000 for rent.  This story just got my goat.

My DH and I work hard to try to allow me to stay at home full time.  Currently, I work 2 days a week at the local hospital.  I work 2 10 hour shifts and we need that income to make ends meet somewhere close to the end of the month.  So when I heard that I might have to cut my hours back or take the chance of loosing my job, I was devastated.  Our department is moving hours around in order to avoid cutting back total hours.  Those working 10 hour shifts are being given the option to work 5 8 hour shifts instead of 4 10 hour shifts to cut down on down time at the end of the day.  Unfortunately, I only work 2 days a week.  So if I go to 8 hour shifts, I loose 4 hours a week.  That is huge to my budget.  I told them I would prefer to stay as one of the few 10 hour shift options left since I never get overtime.  But I DID tell them that I would rather work 2 8 hour shifts than loose my job all together.

See what I mean?  Why does the big 3 auto makers not get that? In the meanwhile, I will do my best to cut corners and keep my family afloat.  I only wish Karen lived closer to us as she is PHENOMENAL with budgets!

Someone smarter than me is going to have to explain to me this whole auto bail out plan because I am not getting it.  This week I heard a statistic but I can’t remember the source.  The statistic went like this … In 2007, Toyota and GM sold the same amount of gross product.  Toyota, however, mad etwice the profit as GM.  So if htey are both making cars in the US and they both brought in similar amounts of money, then why is Toyota fine and GM needing y tax dollars to pay a rediculous overhead.

Let me say quickly that I do understand that if they go under, we can’t handle the aftermath.  Too many jobs will be lost and our economy will tank.  I understand that.  But what I don’t understand is that if Detroit doesn’t get our tax dollars, then they will restructure under Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Seems to me like I don’t want to throw my good money after bad decisions.

Am  I missing something?  A pay cut would be a heck of a lot better than no paycheck at all.  What do you think?

Xerox has a great campaign going on right now that allows you to send a thank you card to a soldier at no cost to you.  Please stop by and send one from yourself and one from your kids too, if you want.  I filled one out for each member of our family.  They do so much and sacrifice more than we will ever know.  This is true regardless of whether we agree with the mission or not.