Longwood50

Technically there has never really been a social security trust fund. If you "save" money and put it in an investment account the "investments" must be from someone other than yourself. If it was truly invested, there would be stock, bonds from either other nations, or companies, real estate, gold etc. You can not put a piece of paper in the social security trust fund that says that the "treasury" guarantees those bonds and not end up with one area of the government providing a guarantee to pay another area of the government. It is the same government and all debts are general obligations of the government and hence its citizens. The treasury has borrowed all of the social security funds. So the "trust fund" has as assets IOU's from the federal government. So social security owes you, and the government owes the social security trust fund the money to pay you. And that is "investment" If this was a private company with a pension plan they would put you in jail. They are relying on the theory that as sovereign debt that it can't go bankrupt. Well when the amount of debt servicing exceeds the amount of government cash flow they only have two choices. Raise taxes or borrow more. To date, the USA government is borrowing more. By definition a company is bankrupt when either of these occurs. That the total liabilities exceed the total assets of the firm, or that cash flow is insufficient to meet obligations. The latter is already true since they keep borrowing to cover bills. The former may be true. If the amount that the USA has obligated itself to with unfunded mandates does equal the $210 trillion quoted by Forbes, the total net worth of the entire world is estimated to be $500 trillion. I doubt that the USA has a value equal to 40% of the entire world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/10/10/your-pension-is-a-lie-theres-210-trillion-of-liabilities-our-government-cant-fulfill/?sh=4d4a66a465b1

You do not want Lasik. Lasik is for reshaping the cornea to improve vision. A cataract is a clouding of the lens. Reshaping the cornea will still leave you with a cloudy lens and poor vision. Plus Lasik makes selecting a lens replacement due to cataracts much more difficult. I had double cataract surgery earlier this year. My vision was still not bad and every opthamologist I went to said I certainly could wait. I am 73. I said why should I wait until 80 to get better vision. I went to Jomtien Hospital saw Dr. Santa Methasari. Excellent credentials, speaks wonderful English and is extremely pleasant. He also is on staff at Bangkok Hospital Pattaya but the cost there is much higher. Cost for monofocal lens is 39,000 baht per eye. Includes all the check ups, surgery, hospital costs, and follow up appointments. I got a Johnson & Johnson lens so nothing "cheap" about what was used. The cost would be more if you require a toric lens because of severe astigmatism. Most opthamologists would tell you not to go with multi-focal which are the most expensive because they are difficult to accurately determine the correct power of lens replacement. I went with Mono Vision. I have one eye slightly undercorrected and one fully corrected. That allows me to read without glasses, and still have great vision for distance. Your brain automatically selects which eye gives you the best up close or distance vision. My only complication is some slightly sticky feeling which the doctor said will diminish over time.

First off, I am a social security recipient. However there is this "notion" that social security is solvent and somehow the government can just pay more. THERE IS NO MONEY IN SOCIAL SECURITY. It is a pay as you go plan. The current contributions from workers is what is used to pay the benefits of those that are receiving benefits. The U.S. Treasury borrows every penny that is deposited into the Social Security Trust Fund and then "invests" in special Treasury Bonds. Think about that. You have one area of the federal government saying I will take the money but "owe" it back to you. That is like you taking money from your left pocket, spending it, replacing it with a piece of paper labeling it a bond, calling it invested. You can not borrow money from yourself and call it invested. In the end, the "assets" in the social security trust fund are treasury bonds. That is an IOU meaning the Treasury Dept owes the money. The bonds of the Treasury Dept are general obligations of the Federal Government and hence are to be repaid from general tax receipts. When they talk about the soccial security trust fund running out of money, it only means that when current contributions are less than current benefits, the trust fund has to "sell" those bonds on the open market. That only transfers the ownership of the debt. The Treasury will still owe it. It is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to create the illusion that somehow your money is being invested. It is not. You can not loan yourself money, say you are paying yourself interest and call it "an investment" So raising the benefits only means the Treasury will have to borrow even more money to pay for those benefits. A bond is a "loan" an IOU. In this case the Treasury gives an IOU to the social security trust fund. The ultimate ponzi scheme. https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Lyndon_Johnson_Social_Security.htm

I have a Bangkok Bank account. I use a U.S. bank account to accept my social security. As a direct deposit it makes my account free. I then transfer to Wise each month takes 1 day. I then set up an automatic conversion to baht when it hits a specific exchange rate. If you do a direct deposit with any bank the exchange rate is not as good and you take whatever the exchange rate is on that specific day which may be low. When the exchange is made in my account I schedule a transfer from Wise to my Bankgok bank account. Better overall, in terms of cost and I still have a U.S. bank account in the event I need to pay for something there.

It would seem that if you got cooperation from all the cell phone companies that there was a central data base and if a phone number was reported as being a spam caller a certain number of times like 10 that the number would automatically be disconnected by the carrier that issued that number. It would not take long for spam callers to realize that this constant game of changing phone numbers was up and that their phone numbers would get disconnected shortly after their spam calls started.

What I said, was that saying the child lacked the decision making capability at 3 weeks pregnant to have an abortion and suddenly gaining that "adult wisdom" at 13 weeks pregant to have an abortion is nonsensicle. However the main point is that the left is using this as the poster case for why we should allow wholesale abortion. That is like th National Rifle Association seeing a case where a person used a machine gun to save the lives of his family from intruders and using that as a basis to justify allowing everyone to own a machine gun. They are pointing to the infintisimal amount of cases that I believe most people would favor. Rape, incest, life of the mother, or a child with severe birth defects. Not the 42% of the 622,000 abortions to people who want "control of their body" but somehow did not want to control it with a birth control pill, condom or day after pill. Assuming that the facts are that the girl was raped, and was too embarrassed or lacked the judgement to go to her parents or authorities I believe she should have been allowed to have an abortion. What is especially hypocritical is that many of the same people who are now claiming this girl at age 10 lacked the intellectual ability to go to her parents or police, claim that a 5 year old should be able to decide on their gender identity. Abortion remains unchanged in 20 states and the District of Columbia. At will. Most of Europe denies abortion at timeframes ranging from typically from 8 to 14 weeks with Malta, Poland, and Litchenstein having total bans. So the USA is not any different than Europe. Different areas have different laws. In Ohio abortion is still permitted until a fetal heartbeat is detected. That would be 4 - 6 weeks after the rape. The fact she had to travel to another state to have an abortion only shows she still had a choice albeit an inconvenient one.

Which part of I favor abortions for a victim of rape did you miss the first three times I posted it. However, I also posted this three times. Using this as an example to justify the 622,000 abortions is disingenous. This case represents the infinisimal amount of unwanted pregancies not the norm.

I have heard warnings about using pills versus the injections.

Several things. First off the left would have you believe that she has the right to "select her gender" Also, does this girl not have parents? Finally, are you arguing that she didn't have the ability at 3 weeks pregant to get an abortion but suddenly she gained infinite amount of wisdom at lets say 14 weeks of pregnancy to have an abortion. As said I would favor an abortion in the case of rape, incest, to save the mothers life or if the child had severe birth defects But using this child as the "example" of why their should be wholesale abortion is disingenous. It is taking the very infintisamal number of cases like hers and trying to portray it as the norm. The norm is that 42% of those women going in for an abortion are having their second, third, or fourth. Those are not "rape victims' They are people that were irresponsible. Even they had the opportunity following unprotected sex to go to a pharmacy and without a prescription purchase a pill that would end the pregnancy for up to 5 days after having sex. Or were these people also lacking the ability to make such an adult decision.

Oh so its "much better" she waited until later in the pregnacy so that the abortion is a more "pleasant experience" I was born at night but not last night. As said, I don't blame the girl, she did have options but for whatever reason did not avail herself of them. But this pointing to her case and claiming it as a rationale for wholesale abortion is like the NRA seeing a case where a man used a machine gun to protect his family from intruders and using that to justify that everyone should legally be allowed to own a machine gun. I favor abortion rights in cases of rape, incest, to save the mothers life, or if the child has severe birth defects. Those however do not amount to the 622,000 cases of abortion in the USA each year. The fact that 42% of those people who had an abortion were having their second, third, or fourth shows pretty clearly they were not a huge contingent of rape victims but rather a group of people both men and women who though they claimed to want "control of their body" chose not to take control of their body when deciding to have sex.

Yes they have served the country well through its first 250 years. Does the European Union countries all have the same abortion policy or is each country allowed to make its own rules. The USA was deliberately set up as a Republic to give the states as much control and limit what they feared was a domineering federal government. Why shouldn't the people of Texas or Florida say what happens in their state versus what is allowed in Maine or New Hampshire. No different than Germany having a different policy than Poland despite the fact they border each other.

Not blaming, merely pointing out that she did have options. Additionally as mentioned this case represents a "miniscule" portion of the abortions. There were 622,000 abortions in the USA last year and 42% of them were to people seeking their second, third, or fourth abortion. Not 9 year old girls raped. The left points to the most aggregious case and tries to make it seem that is the norm. I am fully in agreement that abortion should be an option in the case of rape, incest, to save the mothers life, or if the child is shown to have a significant birth defect. That would mean that abortions would be the "exception" and not the go to for irreponsible sexual behavior.

That "twisted" logic was called the constitution. The tenth amendment states that only those powers that are specifically enumerated belong to the federal government. All other belong to the states. It was only after liberal Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court when he didn't get his way that the court ruled that those activities that involved interstate commerce could be controlled by the federal government. That opened up most activities. Not abortion however. It is a states right issue. in 20 states abortions remain unchanged plus the District of Columbia. The other 30 states have various restrictions and are free to enact whatever legislation their citizens deem appropriate.

You are going to have to read up on the constitution. There is no constitutional right to an abortion. If there was an provision in the consitution it would have had to go to a vote of all 50 states and 2/3rds of the states would have to ratify it. Also the Supreme Court ruling did not abolish abortion. In 20 states and the District of Columbia abortion remains without restriction. Some like Ohio permit it but not after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Others have different rules. The only thing the Supreme Court ruling did was say this was a states right issue and that each state has the responsibility and authority for determining its law governing abortion.

You have to admit that it certainly is questionable that a 9 or 10 year old girl would have reached puberty. Certainly not out of the question but somewhat unusual. A couple of points. Ohio only restricts abortion after there is a fetal heartbeat. So the girl could have terminated the pregnancy, at any time prior to that occuring. If she reported the rape the hospital would have likely given her a morning after pill which are effective for up to five days, they are also available without prescription at any pharmacy. If longer than 5 days but before a fetal heartbeat, a D&E could have been performed to end the pregnancy. One way or another the situation described is meant to tug the heartstrings of those who point to it as a reason for abortion. The fact is, that in the USA there were 622,000 abortions last year. 42% of those were to women seeking their second, third, or fourth abortion. That number is likely low since it is based solely on what the women told the clinic performing the abortion and some may have been embarrased to say they had had an abortion previously. I can certainly favor abortions in the case of rape, incest, or where the baby has a severe birth defect. Those however would be rare and not amount to anywhere's close to the 622,000 thousand. The fact is that both men and women are irresponsible and using an abortion to erase the consequences of their irresponsibility. I have to admit I find it extremely hypocritical that many of the same people who push for abortion also push to fine and even imprison people who so much as disturb a sea turtle or eagles egg. And those are still eggs and more importantly not human. Though it will never be 100% effective the answer lies in getting people to responsibly deal with their choice to have sex. Those instances of rape, incest, or severe birth deformaties can and should be the exceptions and not the wholesale slaughter of unborn children. The other point that is very hypocritical is that of the 622,000 abortions 40% are to black women, though blacks make up only about 13% of the USA population. I guess BLM only sometimes. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/30/texas-abortion-black-women/

The Parable Of The Camel A traveler set up a tent in the wilderness. He snuggled under his covers for his night’s sleep. The night became cold and his camel poked his nose into the tent. The owner asked the camel, “What are you doing?” The camel replied, “It’s cold outside. If I could only put my nose inside the tent, I will warm up and then spend the rest of the night outside.” The owner agreed to allow the camel to place his nose inside the tent because, after all, the camel’s request made sense and it was only his nose inside the tent. There was still plenty of room for the traveler. Soon the camel asked, “I’m still cold. Could I please place my head inside your tent? I will warm up soon, and then spend the rest of the night outside.” The traveler considered the request. He didn’t want his camel to be cold so, once again, he granted the camel’s wish because, after all, it was only his head and there was still room for the traveler inside the tent. After several minutes, the camel said, “May I please place my front feet inside your tent? They are so cold out here. If only I can warm my feet for a few minutes, then I promise I will spend the rest of the night outside.” The traveler thought about it. There would be less room in the tent, but it was cold and he believed the camel’s promise to spend the rest of the night outside as long as he could warm his feet. The traveler allowed the camel to place his feet inside the tent. Not long after, the camel asked, “Can I take just a few steps inside? I’m sure I’ll warm up and then I’ll definitely spend the rest of the night outside.” By now the traveler was feeling crowded inside the tent, but he consented to the camel’s request. After 30 minutes, the camel took a few more steps inside the tent. Before the traveler realized it, the camel had entered completely inside the tent and the traveler’s only option was to go outside and leave the camel inside the tent. So the owner spent the night outside in the cold, filled with regret that he had allowed the camel to first place his nose inside the tent. One only has to look at California and Hawaii where the local population no longer can afford to live there and only the wealthiest of Americans can compete with the wealthy foreign money. If you want to keep Thailand for Thai's this is a bad idea.

We bought one the Dreame W10. It is the top model. It does a good job. It vacuums and mops. It does map the rooms and is self cleaning. You need to periodically change the water and clean the filter. It does not totally replace manual cleaning since it can not go underneath all the furniture or move it to clean propertly.

There are free services for those who can not pay. Many lawyers will give you a free 30 minute consultation. I went to one of the top lawyers in Pattaya for an initial consultation on a real estate matter and is was 1,000 baht for a 1 hour consultation. If the amount was small, then I would agree its a waste of money. I would "guess" the amount to be more than that because the OP wanted advise and likely would not if the amount was small.

Just an FYI, I sent mine by PDF yesterday to Manilla indicating that I was doing so as a precaution. I got this response from Manilla this morning.

I don't know about here. I am a bit surprised since most of the banks only offer secure cards where the person has to deposit money into an account that the bank holds as collateral. For unsecured debts the credit card company could sue and obtain a judgement against any assets or a wage assignment. They may do it or may not. If the income for debt forgiveness does not apply here, then certainly negotiating a debt forgiveness is the best approach. I would say best to have whatever document they present looked at by an attorney lest you find out that it means something totally different than you thought it did.

I don't know about Thailand but in the USA, if a credit card or any lender "forgives" a portion of debt the government considers that income that is taxable. Better to sign an agreement "not to sue" You negotiate a price for the agreement and since the lender agrees not to sue you there is no enforcement mechanism for them to recover any money from you.

If you want proof. Talk to someone familiar with firearms. Ask how the destructive capability of a .223 Remington/5.56 Nato round compares to a larger .270 Winchester, .280 Remington, or .308 Winchester cartridge. These states think that the AR-15 with its miniscule .223 caliber is too small to even hunt deer with.

No I said you were misinformed. And selectively used "evidence" that supported your pre-conceived notion. Do this for yourself. Look up online the foot pounds of energy of a 55 grain .223 round that is used in the AR-!5 and then do the same for a 150 grain .308 caliber. The .308 has more than twice the power. Look up what the .223 is reccomended for in terms of what type of game. You will see it is listed as a "varmit" cartridge to be used for animals the size of coyotes. Is it lethal. Absolutely but it is like taking a step to ban drunk driving by banning beer. You picked on the one with the least not the most alcohol content. The same is true of picking on the AR-15. It uses one of the smallest cartridges with the least power not the most. The AR-15 is the civilian semi-automatic version of the M-16 fully automatic rifle. As you can see, Vietnam era people who actually used the gun called it a piece of garbage and doubted its stopping power. Which is true. a .22 caliber cartridge is the second smallest caliber made.

Is it sad what has happened to those children. Absolutely. However this knee jerk reaction is akin to banning cars because of drunk drivers, or reckless drivers. If you truly wanted to "save lives" then push for tighter border control The number of deaths particularly amoung "young people" is over 100,000 per year. Far far far more than from firearms. But they occur one at a time rather than in a mass shooting. That is not to say that we should not be concerned about the mass shooters but use a "reasoned" approach. The banning of a single caliber or a single type of firearm only pushes the person bent on killing people to select a different firearm or worse yet, one with far more firepower. You mistakently believe that the AR-15 is some sort of Rambo type machine gun. No it is nothing more than a semi-automatic in a very puny caliber. I can tell you this, and I have shot and reloaded tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition used in target shooting. I would much rather face a person with an AR-15 than with a Remington 742 chambered in .308, .270, .280, or 30:06. The bullets are upwards of 50% larger and pack more than twice the destructive power. So if you could waive your magic wand and ban the AR-15 tht is like trying to combat drunken drivers by banning beer. You picked on the beverage with the lowest amount of alcohol just like picking on the AR-15 is picking on the firearm that is among the least powerful.

I have owned numerous firearms, competed in national target competitions. I have reloaded tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition. Can an AR-15 inflict damage. Yes so can a .22 rimfire the smallest caliber. However what I am saying is that the AR-15 is a puny caliber rifle. It was marketed by Reminton as a "varmit" caliber. Why? Because it was fast, cheap, and had excellent speed even out to 300 yards. That said, it is a small caliber so small that numerous states require that hunters use a larger caliber even to hunt medium size animals weighing less than a human (deer). You can purchase the following semi-automatic rifles that chamber the same exact ammunition as an AR-15 Colt - AR-15 Smith and Wesson Heckler and Koch Sig Sauer Daniel Defense LaRue Tactical BCM Geissele Noveske You can purchase the following rifles in bolt action that also use the exact same ammunition. Savage Remington Ruger Mossberg You can purchase the following lever action rifles using the exact same ammunition. Henry Mossberg Marlin Browning The same is true of the AR-15. It is fast, but light. At its muzzle the .223 has only 1,261 foot pounds of force. By contrast the 150 grain .308 winchester travels slower but has 2,648 foot pounds of energy. It is more than twice as powerful and this is a deer hunting caliber. So in conclusion can you kill people with the AR-15 yes. If you ban the AR-15 you still have a huge number of firearms that are absolutely identical to it in terms of the ammuntion they use and 8 of those are semi-automatics making their capabilities absolutely identical to the AR-15. Now if you ban the AR-15 or any other firearm like it, and in doing so push the shooter to buy the larger .308 caliber one of the most popular hunting calibers in the USA, you have now pushed them into a much more deadly weapon