I love my soaker tub. Jets make me feel itchy. I would see it as another thing to try to clean. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you're interested in other options, you could see if there's a NaPro doctor in town. They would probably have her chart cycles for a few months, maybe test hormones and try to get an accurate diagnosis. That way she won't be surprised by infertility someday, if there's a problem that is masked instead of cured. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Albuquerque has a nice tram ride up the mountains for a relaxing view. Santa Fe has a lot of art galleries and historic churches. A little further away, Bandolier (already mentioned) is a few minutes away from Overlook Park. In one day you could also drive up to Valle Grande, the chaldera of a dormant volcano. There's also a science/history museum of the Manhattan Project with a lot of interactive stuff. (I live in Los Alamos, so I know that area best!) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, maize. I certainly think food should be offered to children with no strings attached. And it is. But the real problem is that many parents won't take it. So, what if you offered those children a "job" as the one who runs attendance to the office, or clicks to the next slide from the computer, or wipes the desks with Clorox for five minutes, in exchange for lunch? Just the easiest, least embarrassing thing you can think of that will let the parents save face about taking "handouts." Of course it would need to be offered subtly and individually, so it probably wouldn't work as any kind of national solution. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would look for black slacks, a nice white or cream blouse, black shoes with just a small heel and a necklace to dress it up a bit. A suit is typical for business formal, but it's not worth the investment if you will never need it again. You should be able to find slacks and a blouse at any department store. Also remember to buy or borrow a decent handbag if you will need one. Many stores will even let you phone ahead, say "I need slacks and a blouse for a formal occasion, size 12, $150 budget" and they will pull options before you even get there. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I live in an unusual town. 80% of residents at least are employed by one employer, to do specialized work which pays very well. It's a small geographic area and few people who don't get the salary from this employer afford to live here. Most local shops and restaurants are staffed by people from other cities who commute. So if I buy there, I'm supporting their community, not mine. Honestly, it would probably be in the employees best interest if we went to them for service rather than making them drive up here every day for our convenience. So I see no charitable or personal reason to shop in town. I do shop at our grocery store and hardware store and gas station, but for most things my choices are to shop 1.5 hours away or to shop online, so I shop online. I place an Amazon order every week on average. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder if there were some way that parents could earn lunch for their kids, or that the kids could "earn" lunch? But maybe the parents are working too hard anyway. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a teenage family member I believe is very addicted to social media. Patty Joanna, would similar resources or techniques be helpful there? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. I don't actually think that we should stop state welfare in favor of private charity. Just that the government itself consumes a large fraction of the money. 2. I'm fine with social security too, but I know that I'm paying in much more than I will get out and that it's a bad investment, especially because I'm young and doubt that SS will be solvent by the time I need it. 4. Mortgage deductions fit into the article itself. The article says that because of tax deductions, our homes are taxpayer funded. 5. Again, the article itself says that a certain group of white people get all the benefits, poor black people don't. The whole premise is that we are a socialist state, but only among this group of certain white people, leaving other groups out of our socialism. 6. You're right, I misspoke. What I really mean to say is that the top 5% of earners pay over half of the national income taxes; the bottom 50% of earners pay 3% of total taxes. I also consider payroll taxes in real taxes paid, which is another 15% up to a certain point. Then there are property taxes and sales taxes and investment income taxes... but poor people pay some of those too. If the state or the voters really got to decide where all of the money was spent, we would be pure communists or socialists. If the individuals decided 100%, we would be not only capitalist but anarchist. Most Americans don't want any of those options and want some balance between the individuals spending money and the state spending money. I do think that there should be some government redistribution. I just disagree with the article itself that we have a white socialism that leaves out everyone else, and I disagree with the author who believes that tax deductions are the same as welfare. Even if they have the same effect in state accounting, collecting less tax is not at all the same as distributing more welfare. One increases the state percentage of spending and the other decreases it. My point is really directed to the article in the OP - I don't believe that there is a white socialism in the US that leaves everyone else out. The progressive tax code and the socialism welfare aspects of our government benefit the poor disproportionately and the rich not at all, which is their express purpose. Obviously rich people have more in life; that's beside the specific point of this article, about socialism in America. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think the games provide some value, or are necessary in some way? Why can't you just trash the whole system? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see a purpose in swim lessons. I never had them and swim much better than the average adult because I spent hours every day in the pool, just having fun. Do you have a pool? Or a pool membership? If so, that's all you need. If not, buy a membership instead of lessons. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously! Women prefer slim fit instead of storage, I think. Or at least that's what designers prefer for us. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I read the first pages of posts and the last, but not all of the middle, so forgive possible repetition. Imagine that there were not corporate or personal tax deductions for mortgages, health insurance, etc. The government, if you combine all levels, currently collects and spends about 7 trillion dollars of our 16.6 trillion GDP. Without any tax breaks, that would be 8 trillion. So the government spends about 42% of our collective money. Without tax deductions it would be 50%. So do we say that the 8% difference is a gift from the government to taxpayers? Or that the 42% is a gift from taxpayers to the government? Who has a fundamental right to decide where the wealth and resources produced by everyone in our nation should be spent? The people who work and create the wealth? The state? The collective taxpayers? Some of each? The argument of the entire article rests on the idea that the government has a right to at least half the wealth of the whole nation. The people who far and away benefit most from the tax structure is poor people. The poorest actually receive more dollars in tax credits than they pay in, a negative net tax rate. (I know because this was our situation the first years we were married with a baby.) Wealthy Americans pay over half of their incomes in taxes. The author is complaining that some of a family's healthcare comes from the 42% taken by the government rather than all of it coming from the 58% left. As far as poor people not benefiting, or black people not benefiting, I'm not seeing it. Poor people do not pay income taxes at all but still receive public school, food stamps, libraries, roads, Medicare and Social Security. They receive much, much more from the state than they contribute, and I'm not complaining about that, but to say that they are left out of our state welfare system doesn't make sense to me. If I pay 25% of my income in taxes instead of 50%, would you say that taxpayers have funded my home? Never mind that to actually deduct mortgage interest, you have to use itemized deductions, and I've never been wealthy enough to do that. Anyway, tax deductions over 30 years might pay for 10% of a home at most. I believe that if I could have all of the money back that I have paid into taxes or my employer has paid on my behalf, I could do much better for myself than what the government has given me as far as retirement savings, healthcare, etc. Heck, if I could just give all of that money to charity I would do more good than the state has done with it. I think that most Americans give more to the government than they get in benefits in any sense, except people who are poor their entire lives.

Do you feel the the same way about requiring a health screening? My husband had a required physical including blood draws for a desk job. Or health surveys? To get a discount we have to take a survey and use this annoying app that tracks meals. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could he be indicating to you that he isn't ready for so much seat work? Or that he's not interested in the particular work you've chosen? Or it's at the wrong level? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, what if you think of it as a 30% discount if you're willing to take a genetic test? If you don't want to know, could you just stick the results in a shredder? (That takes an incredible amount of self-control.) Employers like to get health info from employees even if they aren't going to use it because it helps them budget. They also think that you will be more conscientious of your own health if you're aware of certain things. Or maybe less likely to have children? (That would be a creepy motive!) I'm not really in favor of genetic testing, but I don't know that we need laws against employer discount offers... Interested in responses. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would buy something else you need from Amazon and buy professional newborn photos with the money. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like the idea of cloth napkins but they're always stained with mustard after a few uses. They're just harder to wash than plates. Ditto with diapers - spraying poop in the toilet is much more unpleasant than wiping food off of plates. Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with paper plates either. We've only used them for a few weeks postpartum. I enjoy my meals more on ceramic plates with metal utensils, and it's worth the extra 15 minutes per day to me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair, France chooses not to have a real military because they assume that we've got it covered. Europe is taking advantage of us and we allow it because we like the power. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good to know! I guess it depends on the school. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a friend who had to take a whole year off in high school but went to college, became a great teacher and was in a convent when we met. No long term life destruction. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definitely some kind of lightweight parka. This is a great time of year for clearance coats. I'd check JCPenney and Kohls. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, sort of. My husband's employer is a big company with their own insurance, so they don't pay shares of the premium, they pay for the actual healthcare beyond that. They've actually lowered premiums the last couple years because costs have been less than anticipated! But it's complicated because they're the primary employer in town and have negotiated such low rates that they're driving the doctors out of business. I think we would all rather pay higher premiums and keep the doctors! So we will see how it plays out the next five years. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. That's true, if you do pay that much! We "only" pay 20% in taxes and about 5% for insurance plus deductible. I knew individual was higher, but this is the first I've heard of 14k insurance and 7k deductible! That's nuts. Something has to change. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Various things one can prioritize in selecting meals: -Freshness -Variety -Cost efficiency -Family favorites -Simplicity, lack of stress IF your highest value is getting bargains, shop first. Sure. If your highest value is reducing stress, and figuring out meals is stressful for you, it makes sense to just do it once and be done with it, even if you end up spending a little more or missing the freshest thing in store. I serve veggies as a side and don't include them in my meal plans, anyway. I just pull something out of the fridge or freezer. We buy months worth of meat at one time and we always have all of the types in stock, so it doesn't matter whether I eat chicken this week and beef next week or vice versa. I already have both. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk