Via AmericaBlog, financial adviser Suze Orman gives her wish for Valentine's Day -- that all Americans, gay and straight, can make the most out the money they earn by enjoying the financial benefits of marriage. Watch:
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I've always liked and admired Suze Orman but now I'm just crazy about her! Way to go ! More people need speak out because she is soooo right!
a very hear-felt speech. thanks suzie. love you!!
She's gay?
Yes!
She is gay. I think she either said that on Larry King or The View about a year ago. She has been with her partner for the last eight years.
I don't know whether she's gay or not, but just because a person supports equal rights for gay people, doesn't mean they're gay. What matters is her point is correct, regardless of her sexual orientation.
Two things are true:
You are right about your point.
She actually is gay.
Yup, you betcha she is. Been out for quite a while.
a loser!
Government and MSM need to butt out of people's bedrooms and concern themselves more with what's going on in the boardrooms.
We need to go back to the days of privacy, responsibility and integrity.
Hear, hear!
Which days were these? :)
The government is less involved in the bedroom than they ever have been. Gays have more rights now and are more accepted in society than they ever did before. I'm not saying those rights are complete, or that they are completely accepted. Obviously there is still a long way ago.
But there was NEVER a day when the government was all about privacy, responsibility, and integrity. What days were those? The ones where they were rounding up gay people and throwing them in jail and mental asylums, or when they were pointing fire hoses at black school children?
I never get it when older generations talk about the golden days of the US government, when they just respected us and let us be free, because those days never existed.
There were days when people had the decency to know what was private and not be discussed in public.
How people choice their life partner is none of the governments business. Its ridiculous that people can't visit in hospitals the person they live and help make life decisions about them just because they happen to be the same sex.
There used to be a time in this country when they media didn't discuss private matters.
Everyone has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Let people decide their own sex lives and quit denying them their rights as citizens of this country.
Well, excuse me, but why are married people given financial benefits that are not available to single people? Thousands and thousands of dollars for people that are married???
Talk about unfair, that's unfair. Why are married people getting those kinds of benefits??
BTW - gay marriage, yes. As Dolly Parton said gay people deserve to be just as miserable as heterosexuals. Why does anyone care how two people choose to lead their lives? Don't we each have problems enough of our own without be concerned about other people are doing?
But the money - outrageous discrimination against single people!
Want a little cheese with that whine?
111 has a valid point. It's cheaper for two people to live together, sharing a household and expenses. That's why there was a dreaded marriage penality for years. Maybe in this day and age where singles live together as much as married couples, it shouldn't make a difference.
Go a step further, why do we encourage couples to have kids. First tax deductions and now tax credits for each child. Why subsidize people having babies?
The main reason is the same reason why Social Security won't change. Married people vote in greater numbers than singles. Those with kids even higher. Seniors vote in the highest numbers. To the voters (and the doners) go the spoils.
While we're at it, eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and deductions for children. If buying a home and having children are truly "personal" decisions, I'm sure no one will object to discarding the subsidies.
Hell Yes!!!
I agree with you 100% What is the point of giving benefits to married people? They already have two incomes, which makes paying rent or mortgage a lot easier than on one income. I'm single and pay my mortgage on my own. Why do people who have help paying their mortgage get tax breaks on top of that?
I can see giving benefits to people with children, but on the other hand... if they can't afford children, maybe they shouldn't have them. I'm all for health benefits for children though. All kids should have healthcare.. heck, all Americans should have health care.
Right on. The real problem is that married couples are given advantages, not that others aren't given the same.
Suze gives good advice on handling your money, but she should stay away from social issues. She doesn't understand fairness. Another example of this is where she recently advocated having the taxpayers bail out people who are 'under water' in their mortgages but are able to make the payments. Being under water on a mortgage is not new. It happened to most of us who bought homes when prices peaked in the late 80's. It would have been unthinkable for us to expect the taxpayers to help us out. Also, when you buy an new car, you're under water the minute you drive off the lot. That's just the way it is.
My question to those homophobic bigots out there is always: When did you choose to be straight?
When ever the debate about the "choice" to be gay comes up, or the notion of a "homosexual lifestyle."
I have to conclude that anybody that thinks being gay is a choice, must be gay or bi. It is not a "choice" for me to be gay, because I am straight. There have been many times in my life that it would have been much more convenient for me to be gay, and if I could have I would have "chosen the homosexual lifestyle," but I couldn't. The idea that it is a choice is absurd.
Unless gay people are not Americans, they must be given the same rights that I have. I respect people's religious freedom, but they must respect my right to be free of their religious beliefs and laws. We don't make laws justifying the stoning of people who don't observe the Sabbath because the Bible says we must. Why should we ignore that part of the bible and focus on the part that justifies our prejudices? The Bible was used to justify slavery too.
The thing is, they don't think of homosexuality as being anything like heterosexuality. That's why they don't think you choose to be straight but you choose to be gay.
Frankly, and unfortunately, they don't think of homosexuality as a sexual orientation. They think of it as a perversion, plain and simple. When they talk about "choice" they mean it in the way you would refer to a pedophile. A pedophile has perverted urges he can't help having, but he CHOOSES to act upon those urges. Or the way an alcoholic can't help being an alcoholic but can choose whether or not to drink.
To them, homosexuality is a perversion and a sin that not everyone is tempted with (just like not everyone is an alcoholic). But it's something that they hold the "sufferer" responsible for CHOOSING to indulge in (again, as you would an alcoholic).
To them, it's about sin, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with love and sexual orientation. They will NEVER believe that homosexuality isn't a dangerous and harmful perfersion.
the problem with her is the condescending, gratuitous way she addresses the audience. further, her advice is available from thousands of sources. lastly, she is hiding something underneath that cape.
Some people need that condescension. The problem is that she unfortunately treats each person she speaks to with that same condescension.
My concern with self-styled financial gurus is whether they are being compensated to spin their advice.
She's not hiding. She's gay. Never been with a man in her life and proud of it. And I totally agree with her. Men are gross.
now let's all go look at pitchers a nekkid wimmin, hyuck, hyuck...
No, we're not but I have nothing against you.
Do you watch her show on CNBC? Have you read her books? (Which she advises you to get from your library rather than BUY from her.)
She is a fabulously wealthy woman. She never has to work another day in her life. All she wants now is to pass on the lessons she has learned along the way.
Simple, common-sense things that most people ignore:
Don't buy things you can't afford
Never run up credit-card debt
SAVE - and understand the meaning of compound interest
Invest wisely and keep diversified
Her motto in life is "People First, then money, then things".
She has great compassion for those in financial trouble and tries to help them work out plans to save themselves. She lashes out at banks that do not renegotiate mortgages. She lashes out at bad financial advisers who are out to line their own pockets with commissions, rather than help the people they're supposedly advising.
Part of her show this week was to offer FREE her Will and Trust kit. (Found on her web-site: SuzeOrman.com. Just enter 'gift code', "People First".) As Suze says, her will and trust information was devised by the BEST legal minds around - ones the vast majority of us could not afford on our own.
Although the offer was made primarily to the LGBT community, it's available to anyone.
I suggest you get to know this woman a great deal better than you do before you criticize her.
Herders4me: Thanks for the info on the Will and Trust Kit. I was thinking of buying it but kept putting it off. I've been a fan since the very beginning when she first appeared on QVC. She certainly has come a long way and I admire her very much.
I do know her from all the free time she gets on public television, and I have seen a few minutes of a few Suze shows. I think the commenter who said she treats all the same--the same condescension--is onto something. She especially demeans women, which I take personally. Her personal preferences are irrelevant. I do object to her use of so much common sense that, ya know, her advice is not needed.
I say we approve gay marriage and then pass a constitutional ban prohibiting right-wing bible-thumpers who believe in creationism from getting married. I mean why not? They pretty much set the stage for stuff like that. I've learned (sadly) that narcissistic judgmentalists pretty have to experience the victim role before they start to get it.
I say if someone partakes in a religious wedding, then they need to fulfill those vows to the fullest and that they would NOT be allowed to divorce. After all, the religious ceremony is now a "legal" contract right? Therefore, the vows which include: "I _____, take you ______, to be my wedded wife/husband. To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish 'till death do us part. And hereto I pledge you my faithfulness.
If those are the vows that they recite, then they are legally bound until one of them dies.
Agreed 100%.
Y'know, it's interesting... there are a couple of "red" states that do have extra-heavy-duty marriage licenses. I forget what they call them, but it's extremely difficult to get a divorce if a couple uses that form of marriage.
Interestingly, almost nobody wants to.
Religious or civil - the person performing the ceremony is only the "witness" - it is the individuals that 'marry' each other...
You're on the right track. Our laws sanction actions, not beliefs. If someone wants to harbor intolerant beliefs, that is their right. However, it doesn't mean they can act as they wish on those beliefs because it would affect the rights of others. I doubt there are may people out there (except the self-employed) who haven't felt like strangling their boss. I doubt that very few of those people would argue that harboring the idea would be justification to actually do it.
Excuse me. I meant to say that I doubt that very MANY of those people would argue that harboring the idea would be sufficient justification to do it. Then again, maybe I'm wrong.
Her show is excellent, she communicates well, she gives good financial advice. What she does at home is of no interest to me nor should it be to anyone else other than her partner..male or female.
Suze was working as a waitress years ago. One (or several--I've heard both versions from her) customer(s) got together because they thought she was talented and capable of much more. She was given $50,000 to start her own business.
Instead, she gave it to a financial adviser...and lost it all.
And therein, in an effort to make the money back, a star was born.....
Apparently civil unions don't cut the mustard where she's concerned.
"Separate but unequal is inherently unequal." - (Brown v. Board 1954)
THANK YOU!
You are the only other person I've heard invoke 'Separate but equal' in discussing this issue, and it is so obviously relevant.
If you can find a single state where a civil union confers ALL the benefits of marriage, that argument would hold water. But they don't..
ALL unions should be civil unions. The religious ceremony should have no legal standing - it's a private matter. If married Catholics choose to divorce, they can do it legally, but they also have to pay big bucks to get their marriage dissolved in the church.
Take the church out of domestic partnerships altogether. It's a civil contract.
Discriminating against homosexuals makes as much sense to me as discriminating against people who are, for example, 5'8". What if all people who are 5'8" were not allowed to marry? Any homosexual will tell you that s/he did not choose to be gay (or 5'8"); did we heterosexuals choose to be hetero (or 5'4")? I fail to understand why full human and legal rights for homosexuals is even an issue.
If those who are against gay marriage are so concerned about "the sanctity of marriage", as their mantra states, why aren't they working on our 60% rate of divorce, pre-marital counseling, affordable child care, anger management, etc. - things might actually have a positive effect on the state of marriage.
Because of course they care not one whit about the "sanctity of marriage". They couldn't even tell you what that means. Except that homosexuals aren't part of it 'cause it says so somewhere in the Bible. You know, in the part of the Bible that says to cut off a hand if the person eats pork, and other really annoying, outdated, ridiculous stuff that they clearly don't pay attention to. Its called judgmentalism, and they like it 'cause they don't have to work on their own spirituality 'cause they're too busy judging everyone else's behavior.
How about Solomon and his several hundred wives and concubines? One man/one woman, my asterisk!
As to your question........hypocrisy has no bounds.
I have no problem with Suze's pitch for everyone's access to marriage. However, what if you don't believe in marriage or you haven't found the right person and you aren't married? Where's the tax breaks for these people? Single people without children should be pretty contained lifestyle wise i.e. they don't use as many resources and *usually* have fewer sick days as they're not caring for someone else. Where's their break?
Excellent question.
I totally agree. Single taxpayers subsidize everyone else. We get no break. However, regarding Suze's statement - Right on! I think it's great that she had the courage to state her convictions so publicly.
The simple answer to your "where is the tax break for single people" question is this - they did away with it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
Basically - back in 1969, a tax law was put into effect that was to equalize tax rates for single and married people. Back then, it was promoted as a sign of equality. Now it's known as the marriage penalty tax.
Go figure.
That's actually another issue - not saying it isn't valid, it just isn't the same issue.
didn't she used to be a Soul Train dancer?
Okay Pie7, I'm tired of actually arguing with you. I wrote this down-thread but I would like to put a little perspective on this for you.
Suppose we put a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot to retroactively ban Jamaicans from migrating to the United States, and that this measure would become law by a simply 50%+1 majority vote. As for me, I would vote AGAINST the measure because I believe in YOUR rights as an American citizen and even more so as a human being. However if the measure passed, you would no longer be a US citizen and could be deported. All this simply because a majority didn't agree with it.
That is pretty much what has happened with Prop 8 here in CA. Same-sex couples were ALLOWED to marry, and then a majority was allowed to take that right away, thereby annulling the 18,000 marriages that took place.
You see the difference here is that I would be voting in favor of YOU! Not only would I vote in your favor, but I would also fight for your rights to not only remain in the US, as a citizen, but I would actually be working with groups that would be fighting on your behalf in the court system.
I'm not asking or even telling you to vote FOR us. What I am asking is that you not vote against us either.
OK, it will check with my bible. But, if my mother is an US American citizen and had me in Jamaica, does this theory still applied to me.
What does your bible have to do with anything surrounding what I stated above?
The Constitution, not the Bible, is the supreme law of this land. If you don't like it move to the Vatican.
There are people, allegedly good Christians, who truly believe that homosexuality is a life-style choice.
They do not believe that God would create a homosexual.
They believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Therefore you will never be able to reason with these allegedly good Good Christian people, because they believe God is on their side.
They also believe in Creationism and/or Intelligent Design, and are ignorant of science.
It's best to ignore the ignorant.
No one ever wins an argument.
I get you point, I'm a good Christians that side against same-sex marriage. As for me I do believe in science and not this creationism and/ or Intelligent Design you speak off. Furthermore, I wouldn't say were are ignorant, it's just a matter of core principles, belief and culture differences.
I get your point, I'm a good Christians that side against same-sex marriage. As for me I do believe in science and not this creationism and/ or Intelligent Design you speak off. Furthermore, I wouldn't say were are ignorant, it's just a matter of core principles, belief and culture differences.
OK, I will check with my bible. But, if my mother is an US citizen and had me in Jamaica, does this theory still applied to me.
Pie 7?????????
Any initiative that attempts to retroactively rescind rights that were legally granted is screwed up. That simple enough for you?
As for your bible... I assume you are a Christian, not an ancient Hebrew. Please check to see what Jesus said about gays.
I'll save you the trouble. Jesus never said anything about gays, lesbians, or anyone else.
He said "Love one another." NO exceptions, no fine print.
The Constitution, not the Bible, is the supreme law of this land. If you don't like it, move to Afghanistan.
"check with my bible"? I don't know who you are or where you came from but your posts don't make sense and you murder the English language. Bowling alley closed today?
It was a slim majority at that.
Loading comments…
The Huffington Post | Rachel Weiner
First Posted: 02-15-09 11:32 AM | Updated: 03-18-09 05:12 AM