Susita

My hubs doesn't do a whole lot of cleaning, but he also used to sweep the carpet We have this really awesome mop I bought, but he insisted on mopping the floor with a stick and a rag. He also wouldn't flush toilet paper down the toilet for a while. In Peru no one flushes toilet paper.
He wouldn't drink cold drinks with a meal. Iced coffee and iced tea were a total no/no. We had to have rice with everything, even BBQ, hamburgers and hot dogs. A sandwich "wasn't a meal." Oh reeeally???
Things have changed. I've Americanized him. He has embraced modern technology and eats a meatball hero and a cold soda like it's nobody's business. And who's the first one to stop at Dunkin' Donuts and pick us up some iced coffee? Yep, this guy.
... but you can't change everybody. Rice is still a big thing in this house. It's a good thing I can cook Peruvian food!

I agree 99% with Sachiky's post.
However, I think becoming engaged is a huge step & you should really know the person you're getting engaged to before you get engaged OR petition for a visa. I would have never petitioned for Luis to come here to "test" the waters for 90 days. Sure, it's better than jumping into marriage blind, but don't you think it's a bit irresponsible? Maybe that's one of the big reasons why the marriages fail on here, not just because of cultural differences.
We spent a lot of money and time on the visa process and I would never go through all of that for just some silly test run.

I thought I had replied to this thread, but perhaps there was another very similar.
1. The obvious comment is that you should immigrate, not him.
2. Sounds like they do not have a Visitor Visa and they may well not get one.
3. A Visitor Visa is for visiting, US style, not living Indian style.
4. I know with my Mother, 2 weeks Travel Insurance cost the same as the flight.
5. They are prepared to camp in your living room for 6 months? A few days sounds practical.
6. What would they do?
7. I he wants family ts stay they perhaps he should source suitable accommodation, a much bigger property for a start.

I vote you cancel the ticket while you can. You can always book a new one. Best if you do it after your big exam, and NOT on a loan.
A few things have stuck out here: there's what he wants, what might be possible, and what is flat-out not likely or legal. And then there's what might be a bad idea. It would be best if the two of you agreed on a short visit, and you just had to figure out what to tell his parents.
First: Why would he want to bring an elderly, sick parent to a country with expensive and defective healthcare? See, you're a caring daughter-in-law! I actually know one woman who had health problems who sped up her marriage to an Indian man so she could move FROM the USA to India. If you can't afford plane tickets outright, you can't afford hospital bills outright either! And I would hope he is "attached" to her, she's his mother! If she needs supervised healthcare, you've got some other problems going on here...
Second: On the other hand... Don't Indian parents want grandkids? How the $#%@#$% do they expect any sex to go on if they are staying with you for 6 months and you are camped out on the floor? And have no privacy? They don't sound particularly respectful of it now... You really don't want any parents around until you've managed to work out things for yourselves --- just the two of you. Who does which chores, etc. How that all plays out will probably be different than you think.
Third: Any idea where your lease is? Four *adults* in a 1-bedroom apartment might be normal in India, but over here I doubt it is legal. Now 1-bd could mean anything, I don't know what city you are in and if you have 400 square feet or 1,200 square feet. But find that lease, and see what the longest allowed legal "stay" is. I bet it isn't over 4 weeks. Past that, and your landlord could require you to add them to the lease! And require a credit check/etc for them. (Likewise, I doubt they will be able to stay with your husband's brother IF he were studying here. Unless he was one roommate in a large house... Mentioning that is just some "he's better than you" guilt thing.)
I think the two of you need some cool-down time here. Manipulation and stress isn't going to help your studies.

The ticket - you already know that answer to that, it is clear as day in your emails, it is a bad time for you to go, you can't afford it, you should cancel it if you still can. Bear in mind this will probably not go down well with your husband, but you have to do what is right for you.
From an outsider's perspective it is very clear what is happening here - he is manipulative and controlling. He is not putting you first.

Not one.
Komen funds paid for breast cancer exams. Facts are a beotch, indeed.

Komen reverses decision to cut Planned Parenthood fundsBy Cynthia E. Keen, AuntMinnie.com staff writer
February 3, 2012 -- The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation announced today that it will continue to fund existing grants and also consider future grants for Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening, clinical exams, and educational programs, reversing a controversial policy that came to light just days ago.
The move follows a firestorm of criticism by the public, opposition from several of Komen's state affiliates, resignations and threats of resignation within Komen's leadership, and a national media frenzy over the decision.
Over the past five years, Planned Parenthood health centers have provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and more than 6,400 mammogram referrals with Komen funding. Komen provided program funding of approximately $680,000 to Planned Parenthood in 2011.
Several weeks ago, the foundation had begun notifying Planned Parenthood programs that their breast cancer initiatives would not be eligible for new grants, according to a Planned Parenthood spokesperson. The new policy began receiving widespread attention after news articles were published on January 31.
Although Nancy Brinker, Komen's founder and chief executive, stated in a news conference on February 2 that the organization's decision was based on improved grant-making procedures -- and had nothing to do with abortion or politics -- critics suggested otherwise.
The New York Times reported that John Raffaelli, a Washington, DC, lobbyist and Komen board member, told the newspaper that Komen made the changes to its grant-making process specifically to end its relationship with Planned Parenthood. Raffaelli said that Komen had become increasingly worried that an investigation of Planned Parenthood by Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) would damage the organization's credibility with donors, the Times reported.
Today's announcement from Brinker stated that the organization "will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities."
She further stated that Komen would amend its newly implemented grant-making procedures to exclude only investigations that are criminal and conclusive in nature. "We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics -- anyone's politics."
Dr. Kathy Plesser, a mammographer practicing in New York City, and a member of the medical advisory board of Komen's New York City affiliate, had been quoted in a New York Times article as stating that she would resign if Komen did not reverse its decision.
In a statement, Planned Parenthood officials said they welcome Komen's reversal.
"In recent weeks, the treasured relationship between the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation and Planned Parenthood has been challenged, and we are now heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood. "We are enormously grateful that the Komen foundation has clarified its grant-making criteria, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Komen partners, leaders, and volunteers."
http://www.auntminni...d=98191&wf=4767

You're more detached from the real world than I had realized.

I think actually running for the office is a minimum requirement to be considered a potential candidate. That said, I think that in an age where a campaign costs hundreds of millions of dollars, financing a security detail should be feasible and well within the means of a campaign budget.
Next thing you know, they'll put up a detail for the funny uncle who simply refuses to accept the inevitable.

It's a sad state of affairs that a candidate gets tax-sponsored protection and people see that as a good thing.

That's a bad case of amnesia. Fox News has not been speaking positively about Obama. Ever. Not when he was a candidate, not once he was elected and certainly not since he took office. Fox News also was not the biggest anti-Bush station. Ever. You got it all twisted, bro. Fox News is the propaganda machine of the GOP. Has been since it's inception and it continues to play that part. What it is not, is a news network.

True. But Dems have the lock on the fruits, and the fruitcakes.

Democrats by and large are lacking balls. They're okay in the brains department, though.

Yes, but they're usually short on one organ - the brain. Which explains why they're Republicans.

I thought if one wants to see hot chicks one would turn to Playboy TV rather than to some propaganda organ of the Republican Party.

Celebrate the dumbing down of America!

I've looked at it on a more general level. Not sure why this should require extensive examination. The trend is very clear: labor force participation rates have gone down since 2000. And this trend will continue for quite some time. This is not surprising seeing that labor force participation rates decrease for the population starting with the 50-54 age bracket. This has long been the case as the graph shows. The oldest baby boomers are 66 years old now, the youngest are 48. It is clear, then, that the labor force participation rate of the baby boomers overall is on the decline and will be for the next few decades. The baby boomers making up such a significant amount of the population and still making up such a significant part of the labor force, it would be quite unreasonable to expect the labor participation rate to hold steady let alone increase over the next couple of decades. Unless we get rid of Social Security and force grandma and grandpa back to work.

That number has been debunked.
the 51 percent figure, its significance, and its policy implications are widely misunderstood.


The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the "Making Work Pay" tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired. In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2] The 51 percent figure covers only the federal income tax and ignores the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay . As a result, it greatly overstates the share of households that do not pay any federal taxes. Data from the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center show only about 14 percent of households paid neither federal income tax nor payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[3] This percentage would be even lower if federal excise taxes on gasoline and other items were taken into account. Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In a year like 2009, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.) Moreover, low-income households as a whole do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households as a group paid an average of 4 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007 (the latest year for which these data are available), not an insignificant amount given how modest these households' incomes are — the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007. [4]The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10 percent of their incomes in federal taxes. Even these figures understate low-income households' total tax burden, because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2010.[5] When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account,the bottom fifth of households paid 16.3 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, in 2010. The second-poorest fifth paid 20.7 percent. [6] It also is important to consider who the people are who don't owe federal income tax in a given year.


Some 70 percent of people who owe no federal income tax in a given year are low-income working households. These people do pay payroll taxes, as well as federal excise taxes (and, as noted, state and local taxes). Most of these working households also pay federal income tax in other years, when their incomes are higher — which can be seen by looking at the low-income working households that receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (see next bullet). The majority of EITC recipients receive the credit for only one or two years at a time, such as when their incomes drop due to a temporary layoff; they pay federal income tax in other years. In fact, EITC recipients paymuch more in federal income taxes over time than they receive in EITC benefits. A leading study of this issue found that taxpayers who claimed the EITC at least once during an 18-year period paid a net $473 billion in federal income tax over that period (in 2006 dollars). [7] This finding shows that — while in any single year some taxpayers will receive refundable tax credits whose value may exceed their payroll tax liability — EITC recipients as a group pay significant federal income taxes over time in addition to the payroll and state and local taxes they pay each year. The fact that most people who do not pay federal income tax in a given year do pay substantial amounts of other taxes, and also are net federal income taxpayers over time, belies the claim that households that don't owe income tax will form bad policy judgments because they ostensibly "don't have any skin in the game." The federal tax system is progressive overall, but state and local tax systems are regressive and undo a significant share of that progressivity. There is nothing wrong with having one part of the overall tax system shield low- and moderate-income households, who pay substantial amounts of other taxes and who generally pay federal income tax as well in other years.








http://www.cbpp.org/...fa=view&id=3505

Don't worry, Obama is doing a FANTASTIC JOB of creating jobs. Isn't that a good thing?

Everyone in Canada should know this. In fact everyone in any country should know this. US health care plans typically have either no coverage or emergency coverage only for travel out of the US. That is not likely to change with universal coverage. It's just a fact of life.
Unfortunately health care here cost's exponentially more than any where else in the world, so Canada's outside coverage (based on Canada's cost schedule) is basically useless. If your US health plan has this type of outside coverage provision, you are lucky. There is no where on earth you can travel where you will be charged as much as you would be in the US.

I showed my boyfriend this thread. He wanted to share his rules for my proper deportment and behaviour around him. It's handy for the other ladies!
I demand that you lay prostate at my feet and look up at me in an adoring fashion while I play WoW There must be constant adulation of me as the King I demand that you keep the toilet seat UP when you finish going potty


My food must be cooked to perfection I demand 5 star service


When my glass is empty, you must refill without me asking.


When my plate is clear, you must ask if I want a second portion or if it is okay for you to take it away You get to eat in the kitchen


After I'm done.


You are to read to me the daily news, without interjecting any comments


You must cut my meat before you serve it to me


You dare not insult me with inferior food

Ehh... I don't buy all the women jobs/men jobs thing. It's all about the dynamics of a particular couple. I thought things would be a lot different in my relationship, my hubs is from S. America which is generally pretty "macho."
If you ask my hubs, he'll tell you that he's quite happy that I also make money
Marriage (& parenting) is a partnership. We both have things we'd prefer to do or not do, and that's normal. I prefer to cook because I honestly really like cooking. He prefers to do the laundry because he can fold it while he watches sports on TV.
I work days & my husband works nights so we don't have to dump a big chunk of our income on daycare or babysitters. Turns out to be the best thing we've ever decided to do. I always knew my hubs was a great dad, but it's even more apparent now. The kids tell me they prefer to stay home with him because he makes them dinosaur chicken nuggets and macaroni and cheese and lets them do whatever they want.

KansasJayhawk ~ that's great advice if he's dealing with fraud, but he hasn't said anything about immigration fraud
Waterski ~ as far as filing for divorce while your wife is in Peru, it can be done. You should consult with a lawyer regarding your state's requirements, but in general, you would just file and have to give her notice. You need to have her served served in a legally binding way that will show the court she received the papers and chose not to answer. When she doesn't show up in court, the case proceeds without her. I would recommend getting an attorney that specializes in international divorce.
Good luck & I'm very sorry to hear it didn't work out

My marriage is not like yours but my relationship has lasted 20 years. Don't blame feminism for the failure of your earlier relationships and marriages. Most people with hyphenated names, wives who make good dough working at jobs they enjoy and husbands who cook because they like it and are good at it do just fine without your "education". They may even be doing better.

Adios Austerity! E.U. Admits Right Wing Policy Of Punishing The Poor Has Failed (VIDEO)

To the surprise of exactly no one to the Left of Grover Norquist, austerity as a sole remedy to recession has utterly failed. It's not exactly an untested theory. We tried it here almost a century ago and it dropped us right into the Great Depression. That didn't stop various countries in the European Union from trying it anyway. Two years later and the E.U. is still languishing behind even the United States' anemic recovery.
The New York Times reports:


Output in both the euro zone and the European Union is still around 2 percent lower than before the crisis.
The Spanish and British economies are still almost 4 percent short of their pre-crisis peaks, the Italian one nearly 5 percent, and the Greek and Irish economies 10 percent to 15 percent, Mr. Tilford added.
Contrary to Republican talking points , President Obama has pulled us out of a massive recession over the last three years by initiating a wage freeze on federal workers and cuts in government spending in some areas (austerity) and boosting the economy with targeted spending in others and tax cuts (stimulus). Strangely, it seems to be working. Albeit slowly.
Standards & Poors, hardly a liberal organization, had this to say about austerity:

"We believe that a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers' rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues"
The rallying cry from the right since the 2008 election ended in a crushing rejection of conservative fiscal policy is that we need to cut spending. But only on unnecessary things like the social safety net of unemployment insurance, Medicaid, food stamps and the like. The military's bloated budget, however is completely off limits for Republicans and so are eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts, both of which make up a majority of the budget short fall.
This shouldn't be surprising since that was the entire point of the push for American austerity. By slashing the safety net to ribbons, Republicans can accomplish the dual purposes of weakening, perhaps fatally so, the programs they've despised since they were first enacted and weakening the economy further to accomplish Mitch McConnell's stated goal of making Obama a one-term president. The fact that austerity would devastate the Middle Class and the poor were irrelevant. The Right feels entitled to the unlimited power they enjoyed during the Bush administration and any tactic is permissible to regain it.
Martin Bashir took a few minutes to dismantle this Right Wing hoax :


The fact is, cutting government spending is not a terrible idea in, and of, itself when necessary. But cutting social services has been proven to be detrimental to a sluggish economy. Cuts should be done with a scalpel, not a hatchet. There are plenty of places to cut the kind of spending that does little to help the economy, like less money towards private contractors. They cost more for fewer results. Again, the Pentagon's budget is almost half of our spending. We were the only Super Power in the world before we doubled our military spending. It's safe to say we'll still be the only one after we cut it back down to size.
Further, the rock solid resistance on the right to raising taxes on the rich by a whole whopping four percent reveals their unseriousness with fixing the economy and reducing the deficit. They have been hiding behind the rhetoric of austerity and "shared sacrifice" knowing full well that the only sacrifice would be on the part of the 99%. Fortunately, the Occupy Movement began eroding the false narrative last year and now, the failure of austerity as a cure-all in Europe has put the final nails in the coffin of yet another conservative economic "policy."
Now, maybe we can have a sober, serious economic conversation without the hysteria and hyperbole.
http://www.addicting...s-failed-video/