This is a typical scenario of many couples who have been married for years. You both settle into a comfortable routine of what is your position, your job, your responsibility in the partnership with faith and trust that the other will continue to do the same indefinitely. This is what makes for a peaceful marriage. Unfortunately I've seen many old widows and widowers who, during the grieving, must learn the other half's responsibilities, and if they married very young, some have no life experience at all to fall back on. Simple things that we take for granted like driving a car, buying groceries, managing a check book, cooking a meal, can be daunting if you hadn't done so in 30, 40, 50 years because your spouse always did it. I guess the issue with your husband celtic, is he doesn't have to learn about investments because he knows you've already taken care of it without him. He probably sees this as your asset to the partnership, your responsibility. Sharing the load, knowing the other is doing their best to further the "cause" is what makes a good partnership in business and a good marriage in life. I think you're right, your Hubby is extremely smart and resourceful in that he has YOU for his partner and doesn't sound like it was by accident ;-) Don't worry about the cooking.

I kind of agree with both halfdecaf an kailuamom's perspective: first, I think that we can't really fault the original speaker because we don't really know what he said. There are some versions of what he said that make perfect sense to me, others that don't, lets give him the benefit of the doubt and not attack a "philosophy" that he, himself, has not explained to us.The original post's vesion of the speaker's words made me think of how annoying rote "sorry's" are *especially* when they've been demanded of a child, given, and then abandoned. I'm thinking of the kid who spills something at your house and never says sorry except that the parent demands they do and then...nothing...they run off and play and the parent cleans up. Or the kid who viciously pushes your kid in the park and says "sorry" when told to but then the parents and kid walk away from you and your sobbing, snot smeared child. I think we would all be in agreement that a coerced sorry is not sufficient and that an educational method that relied *only* on coercion to produce the word but not on coercion or serious practice to change the behavior would be at fault. I'd like to read the speaker's words in the most generous way and figure that he's saying that sorry alone is not enough and that we have to work, long and hard, with kids to make them the kind of people who can realize that they have hurt someone else and take affirmative steps to make the hurt right. It sounds like kailuamom and I have the same kids, or the same parenting strategy. Neither of my children has any trouble saying they are sorry--and really meaning it. I don't mean "sorry for stepping on your toe" or "sorry for being a jerk" but like this "I'm sorry, mommy, that you are having to take me out to my friend's birthday party when you aren't feeling so well. Thank you for doing it." Or "I'm sorry that you had to make me soup and crackers (because I"m sick) when you already made a different dinner for everyone else." In other words, their sense of what they are doing, their duties towards other people, extend far beyond "don't step on people's toes" to "don't inconvenience people" and "don't take other people's kind actions for granted." I remember another mother in my baby group with my firstborn asking me "how I *made* her so empathetic?" and I just cracked up, you can't make someone empathetic. but you certainly can work on them, and have to work on them, to make them attentive to those around them. So sure we start out, even when they are babies, saying "oh! I'm so sorry you fell down! let me kiss it" and saying to them "oh, say sorry to little dulcibella for grabbing her toy." But as they get older our strategies for working with them and modeling for them have to get more sophisticated because they are more sophisticated. Modeling the behavior you want is the first thing you have to do but how many of us are even more self centered than our children? How many times do we demonstrate to them that we take the actions, gifts, griefs, etc...of other people for granted? IF the only "sorry"s they see are ungracious they will be ungracious. If they see their parents courteously deferring to each other, to the grandparents, to strangers they are going to learn (eventually) that "Sorry" goes a lot farther than just a word said after an incident, its a whole way of thinking about the situation and the other person. If you are still ordering at ten year old, or a fifteen year old, to say sorry you need to rethink your educational strategy because its not working. By the time they are fifteen most social behaviors should be pretty well engrained--or else they are rebelling against them for reasons that need discussion and airing. At that point they are also old enough to experience the natural consequences of failure to observe social niceties, as well as failure to be empathetic. If you are a jerk to your cousins or your friends, well, they won't play with you. If you are a jerk to your older relatives or older people, well, they won't do whatever things you've been counting on them to do. If a ten or fifteen year old kid behaves badly and doesn't say they are sorry--or even behaves selfishly and seems unaware of it--then just forcing them to say sorry (though it may be necessary) j ust isn't enough. So I guess I'm saying that I can see situations in which the original speaker is absolutely right--of course if he really said what was described I think he's an idiot. But there has never been a shortage of idiot motivational speakers. abfab

When I worked as a personal financial advisor, I recommended that my clients have 3 - 6 months' worth of income available as an emergency fund, available in case of need. If they could survive for a year without any income ... so much the better. But ... I didn't have that, myself, and haven't for a number of years. And as my clients became more knowledgeable about how money works, I explained to some/most of them how I operate, with my reasons. For working people, they must continually be in sufficiently good physical, mental and emotionl health to go to their workplace and carry our their required tasks there ... or they don't qualify for that essential paycheque! Plus ... hope that their employer doesn't go broke, close the business, shift work offshore, or get amalgamated with another company, merging the employee's work into the other home office, etc. Now, as a senior, in receipt of two government pensions, one of them contributory, plus a private pension, plus a tax-deferred retirement account that requires an annual withdrawal amount of about 7% up to 10% or so, increasing with age to 20% at age 90), plus I can withdraw more, if I choose (but every dollar taxable) I do not have such a requirement. All that I need do to qualify to continue to receive my pensions ... ... is stay topside the grass! So - I have darn near a guaranteed income ... till the day of my death. Quite a comfortable position in which to operate, I figure. Sometimes I have some readily-available cash, sometimes not ... but that doesn't trouble me. I carry a credit card. If I have an emergency, I'll use the card to pay for whatever I need. I have a Line of Credit, fully secured by mutual fund and stock certificates, that sits unused, most of the time. There was no set-up fee, and there is no maintenance fee if I let it lie unused. Its main purpose is to use when it suits me to purchase investments, if I lack the cash at the time. If I were to use it for funds to be be used in an emergency, most of the uses being not deductible, I would set up a separate line of credit, having certificates issued as needed, to provide the security, so that I have one fund for deductible situations, one for non-deductible emergency use. When I receive my account next month from the credit card agency for the amount owing, I draw a sufficient amount from the non-deductible line of credit to pay that amount in full, thus avoiding interest cost re the credit card. Interest on the line of credit now is 5.25% ... and I'd try to pay it off from current income as quickly as possible. And leave the line of credit that I use for purchase of investments, making the interest cost deductible, uncontaminated by a loan used for non-deductible purposes. Also, I feel comfortable, as I approach age 80, at carrying 80% of my assets in equities. As you know, the stock markets are down, now. Suppose I have an emergency develop tomorrow that requires a substantial amount of expense. Would I sell some of my equities, probably at a lower price than they usually run? Sometimes some of the market is down and other parts are operating at approximately their usual levels. If there were some parts that I might consider to be not undervalued, I might liquidate some of them. But probably I would not. I might liquidate some mutual funds, as I have grown increasingly unhappy with them over recent years. If I sell some stocks, there's the commission to sell them. Then, if there's been a capital gain, I must pay the income tax people a portion of that gain, next year. Then, when I accumulate funds to purchase more stocks, there's commission to pay once more on my purchase. When one considers those costs, often its wiser just to initiate a temporary loan to deal with the emergency. Not only that ... it has been my experience that, after a period when stock markets were undervalued, when the recovery takes place, there is substantial increase in value within a year or two or three following that low market period. I would very likely make a loan, pay it off in part over the intervening period and liquidate some assets as needed after the recovery in order to discharge that loan. If I can make 25% more on an sale of an asset over a couple or three years ... I don't mind paying 5.25% annual interest. I don't have large worry over medical and hospital costs ... if I were a U.S. resident, with higher potential medical and hospital care costs, I might evaluate the situation differently: but possibly not much differently, even so. I hope that you've found this explanation understandable ... and interesting. I am interested to hear your comments. I hope that you are enjoying this beautiful spring weekend ... my multiple-trumpet daffodils are out! ole joyful P.S. If you use this idea and it earns you, say, $300. ... you owe me 10%, right? o j

I don't doubt he could abuse drugs and never get caught. It happens. Some CPS workers are more liberal than others.. Some cops are more liberal than others... and same with family court Judges. We have a therapist that believes SD10 should be seeing her mom on supervised visits only because of emotional abuse, yet he is not willing to say so in court. He doesn't want to be involved in court proceedings. We had a Judge that heard testimony on BM bringing BF's to sleep with her in the same room she shared with her daughters.. and from what SD acted out with her barbie dolls (in sexual positions) and told us about what she saw... the court did not think that was enough to give BM less custody than DH. I have had cops tell me that CPS ruins families when I asked them to check the welfare of my 10mo old DGS. I have had CPS see the bruises on DGS and tell me that unless they see the mother high with the child, they can do nothing... babies get bruises. It is very difficult, not impossible depending on WHO the players are, to get supervised visitation or to take away a parent's visitation or rights altogether. You pretty much have to go back to court repeatedly, with the same Judge and prove these things are going on and hope that eventually the court will take your side. I have seen it go the other way... a parent bringing multiple actions to say things are going on, only to have the Judge admonish the parent for dragging the other parent back to court over and over. A good attorney is a must. There are attorneys that will take a case pro bono or at a reduced fee if they believe one side is at a disadvantage because of financial position and they believe it's in the best interest of the children to be with that parent. Men have Father's rights groups, Mothers have domestic violence & family services groups. One thing I have learned (and always work on practicing because it is HARD), is to let go. Many times, these battles are about control, power & let's not forget about MONEY, not about the kids. The more you battle in the name of the kids, the worse it gets. When it's not fun anymore (or when there is no 'rush' from the fight), the other side will eventually go away and leave you alone... if they are just in it for the battle. I stopped fighting when my son was 12... his dad vanished into the woodwork. I have never heard from him again. After my son turned 18, they have seen each other & spoken, but I have nothing to do with it. I removed myself from the situation. The more we ignore SD's mom, she has had less to do with us... she's still damaging her daughter, but there isn't a battle with us anymore. She still tries.. does things that if WE did them, she would go ballistic, but we shrug & say see ya next time... and go on our merry way. Now, I am working on doing the same with my DIL... as she calls me every name in the book... as she brings DGS back to me with red marks that 'could' be signs of abuse.. or everyday marks babies get.. and she likes to imply he hurt himself by telling me he tried to drown himself or he's depressed/bipolar. I have good reason to believe she is abusing him & she is mentally ill.. but it is still going to be an uphill battle to prove it in court & the last thing I am willing to do is allow myself to get sucked into a battle of wills with her. I document things. I don't confront her, she just denies it. I notify the proper authorities to document what I believe is going on... if they do nothing, at least it's documented. That's all you can do. He is their father and they know better than anyone what their father is about... the time will come when nobody can force them to go. Emotional abuse is horrible, I see it in my SD10 and she lives with us. Her mother makes it impossible for her to live a happy life here, all because she doesn't want to pay support. In time, she will decide for herself. We don't like to let her go because we know the things her mother puts in her head but we have to, it's the law.