Lori Alexander 58: A Family Holiday on the Toilet

[EowynW]

Getting flashbacks to my Mom teaching is "it's HIS money since he works for it." 

[wallysmommy]

Women like this have no clue as to what they have/owe/own if the husband died unexpectedly.  They are purposefully ignorant.  I saw this happen with a friend, and the house of cards collapsed when she found out he wasn't paying the bills, and they lost everything.  I have a new name for them -- The Ostrich Helpmeet.

Here's a new catchphrase:  The Oracle of California teaches the Ostrich Helpmeet.

[usmcmom]

If a wife is not named as a joint account holder, what becomes of those accounts upon her husband's death?  I THINK there is a chance she will not automatically gain access to those funds. 

I bring this up because, as some of you may remember, my husband lost both of his parents in an eight month span. Most of their assets had clearly designsted beneficiaries; but there was one checking account that was only in his dad's name (his dad passed after his mothe)  Things are all a blur but that is part of the estate that had to go through probate.  

If this man has six accounts in his name only, is he preventing his wife from caliming those funds if he dies before her?  Don't these men think about providing for their familieis if their wives are left widows? 

 

[feministxtian]

20 minutes ago, usmcmom said:

If a wife is not named as a joint account holder, what becomes of those accounts upon her husband's death?  I THINK there is a chance she will not automatically gain access to those funds. 

We were told (while we had separate accounts) that our marriage license to prove relationship would give us access to each other's funds (but I knew how to log into his online banking and xfer funds to me). The safe bet is to put her name on it all. 

These men are like my father...he refused to up his life insurance, did not elect survivor's benefits on his pensions, and basically got the final fuck you to the mother, leaving the financial burden of taking care of her to me. 

[AuntKrazy]

The more I read about these fundies marriages, the less I am surprised that they think marriage is especially hard. Their marriages all are prescribed roles at the expense of a deep, intimate relationship.

There are a multitude of reasons for separate accounts. For example, an account including elderly parents to assist with maintaining financial health for someone beginning to experience dementia.

Everything is upside down and one-size-fits all with these people. Just because some things are separate does not indicate a lack of communication.

 

[delphinium65]

Today's bucket o' bilge bears the title 'SHE DOES NOT SEEK HER OWN WAY.'  The first line is 'Charity…does not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.' The Godly Mentor then goes through each part in separate paragraphs.  Let's take a journey down this path with Lori as the subject. 

“Charity does not behave itself unseemly.”  Going on the rest of that paragraph Lori is in deep shit.  She may not cuss or swear, but she does slander others, she does demand to be heard, and she is very rude.  Discreet?  Kind?  Gentle?  Huh?  Meek and quiet spirit?  Who the heck is she talking about here?

“Charity seeketh not her own.”  Funny, Lori seems to be pursuing her own goal of being Number 1 Internet Busybody.  Tell me again how that benefits your husband and children, O Great Godly One.  Peaceful?  Riiiiiight.  

“Charity is not easily provoked.”  Need I say anything more here?  

“Charity thinketh no evil.”  Sez the woman who assumes the worst possible motives for working mothers, women with careers, any female who isn't living by Lori's Law.   They aren't just mistaken, and they don't have good motives for what they do, even if (Lori thinks) they're doing the wrong thing. No, they are evil Jezebels who don't love God or his 'Perfect Ways.' They hate God, they are in direct willful rebellion, they don't care about their husbands or children, but only about their own selfish wants.  But by all means, keep telling me how you think no evil, Lori dear.  

Does this woman ever look in the mirror?  

[klein_roeschen]

1 hour ago, wallysmommy said:

Women like this have no clue as to what they have/owe/own if the husband died unexpectedly.  They are purposefully ignorant.  I saw this happen with a friend, and the house of cards collapsed when she found out he wasn't paying the bills, and they lost everything.  I have a new name for them -- The Ostrich Helpmeet.

Here's a new catchphrase:  The Oracle of California teaches the Ostrich Helpmeet.

Call me cynical, but it's also a great way to screw them over.  I wouldn't be surprised if they even know about credit contracts or mortgages in their names. Over the years I met some women who co-signed credit contracts for their then partners. Then the partner left and stopped paying the rates. The banks went than after them for the money and they ended up paying the debt of them. In one case, the man screwed over several women with that ploy. And if only one of the married couple has access and the knowledge of the exact financial accounts, it reeks of financial abuse.

[SongRed7]

2 minutes ago, delphinium65 said:

Does this woman ever look in the mirror?  

I thought the same thing. I'm like, "are we being punked?"  "Is this a trick question?"  Is she really that dense? 

[Blessings of the Corn]

1 hour ago, usmcmom said:

If a wife is not named as a joint account holder, what becomes of those accounts upon her husband's death?  I THINK there is a chance she will not automatically gain access to those funds. 

I bring this up because, as some of you may remember, my husband lost both of his parents in an eight month span. Most of their assets had clearly designsted beneficiaries; but there was one checking account that was only in his dad's name (his dad passed after his mothe)  Things are all a blur but that is part of the estate that had to go through probate.  

If this man has six accounts in his name only, is he preventing his wife from caliming those funds if he dies before her?  Don't these men think about providing for their familieis if their wives are left widows? 

 

No. I work in banking here in the states. If there is no additional signee or payable on death (beneficiary) listed on the account then no one else will have access to funds, even spouses. They MAY be able to pull some strings, but it takes a lot of effort and it's not guaranteed. That's why I tell everyone who opens an account to add another signer (you can add signers with many stipulations if you don't want them to have access to funds). It makes life so much easier if you're ever in an accident, sick, or so forth and you need help with managing your accounts. Or at least add spouses and/or children as beneficiaries so they'll get the fund in your accounts. 

[wallysmommy]

I was administratrix for my mom’s estate which took us 9 months to probate and get a final judgment. Thankfully I was on all of my parents’ accounts so I could access the money and pay bills. I need to take my own advice. If something happened to me no one could access my accounts without probate.

[delphinium65]

1 hour ago, SongRed7 said:

I thought the same thing. I'm like, "are we being punked?"  "Is this a trick question?"  Is she really that dense? 

The lack of self awareness is truly astounding. I would say it's impossible, but this is Lori we're talking about...and she does seem to be that dense.  

[Loveday]

4 minutes ago, wallysmommy said:

I was administratrix for my mom’s estate which took us 9 months to probate and get a final judgment. Thankfully I was on all of my parents’ accounts so I could access the money and pay bills. I need to take my own advice. If something happened to me no one could access my accounts without probate.

I need to talk to my mother about this asap. I'm on her checking account, but not her savings. I'm her sole heir in her will, but my name is not on anything else, as far as I know. I don't even know what all insurance policies she may have. As her primary caregiver (she still lives on her own, but I do all the driving for her, clean her apartment, do her laundry, deal with medical issues, etc), I guess I need to figure all this out now and have her put my name on everything before it's too late and I'm dealing with a pile of confusing and long-drawn-out probate issues.

[feministxtian]

12 minutes ago, Loveday said:

I need to talk to my mother about this asap. I'm on her checking account, but not her savings. I'm her sole heir in her will, but my name is not on anything else, as far as I know. I don't even know what all insurance policies she may have. As her primary caregiver (she still lives on her own, but I do all the driving for her, clean her apartment, do her laundry, deal with medical issues, etc), I guess I need to figure all this out now and have her put my name on everything before it's too late and I'm dealing with a pile of confusing and long-drawn-out probate issues.

Its MUCH easier if you're a co-owner on everything. Our cars have "his name" OR "her name" on all the titles. That way I can do all the registration crap w/o him. So did the deed to our old house. It's funny, everything else was joint but the bank accounts weren't...but we're a bit odd...

[usmcmom]

As soon as my mother-in-law was diagnosed, they put my husband's name on all their accounts except the one they overlooked. They were like squirrels who stored a nut in every tree in the forest. They had accounts in five banks and three cities. It was kind of a mess at first but, because my husband was their POA and named on all the accounts, he was able to consolidate their funds into one location at their hometown bank. It made it much easier for him to take care of them  

It's very interesting. My mother-in-law had a tenth grade education but we learned she was one smart lady when it came to her finances. It was a real gift to her kids; they had no worries when it came to paying for their parents' care. We learned a lot from that experience and are making some changes in our own finances based on that whole experience. 

[polecat]

4 hours ago, EowynW said:

Getting flashbacks to my Mom teaching is "it's HIS money since he works for it." 

So her name is on the debts but not any of the assets? 

Jesus.

[Hisey]

1 hour ago, Loveday said:

I need to talk to my mother about this asap. I'm on her checking account, but not her savings. I'm her sole heir in her will, but my name is not on anything else, as far as I know. I don't even know what all insurance policies she may have. As her primary caregiver (she still lives on her own, but I do all the driving for her, clean her apartment, do her laundry, deal with medical issues, etc), I guess I need to figure all this out now and have her put my name on everything before it's too late and I'm dealing with a pile of confusing and long-drawn-out probate issues.

I'm always amazed by families who add each other's names to accounts so easily, with such trust. In my own family of origin, money was a giant secret. Even worse, everyone on my father's side--everyone--disinherited someone, often their own children. They huddled around their money while they were living, and drafted restrictive controlling wills for when they were dead. No one would ever have added a name to account, even if that account had only $5 in it. 

That was on my father's side. Once she divorced from the crazies, my mother tried to reduce our estate tax by giving us money while she was alive. It was very generous, but eventually I stopped taking it because I knew she needed it.

All this has given me food for thought. I am religious about keeping our estate plan updated. It's in an easy place where my kids can find it, should I suddenly pop off. And I've tried never to use money to control or express my disapproval. I still have my issues with trust, though.

[Loveday]

7 minutes ago, Hisey said:

I'm always amazed by families who add each other's names to accounts so easily, with such trust. In my own family of origin, money was a giant secret. Even worse, everyone on my father's side--everyone--disinherited someone, often their own children. They huddled around their money while they were living, and drafted restrictive controlling wills for when they were dead. No one would ever have added a name to account, even if that account had only $5 in it. 

That was on my father's side. Once she divorced from the crazies, my mother tried to reduce our estate tax by giving us money while she was alive. It was very generous, but eventually I stopped taking it because I knew she needed it.

All this has given me food for thought. I am religious about keeping our estate plan updated. It's in an easy place where my kids can find it, should I suddenly pop off. And I've tried never to use money to control or express my disapproval. I still have my issues with trust, though.

We have a similar situation to this in a branch of the extended family right now. My mother is aware of it, and knows how much heartache and divisiveness it's causing within that branch. (And trust? Hoo boy. I USED to trust the people in that branch, but not any more!) 

Mom and I are the only ones left of our immediate family, though, and she knows that if I haven't touched any of her checking account money by now (it's been a good ten years since she added me to the account--she added me in case she ever ends up in hospital and needs me to write the rent check or pay the electric bill, that sort of thing, none of which I've had to deal with yet, thankfully), I'm not going to touch anything else without her express permission and without showing her every single receipt. That's HER money, and she needs it to make the rest of her life easier. I couldn't sleep at night if I touched a single penny that wasn't mine. But she's seen how things are going in the extended family, and she's seen how long it took her own sister to get everything settled when her husband passed unexpectedly a few years ago, so I think she'll agree with me that getting my name on everything possible will be for the best. Of course, she can always say no, and I'll totally abide by that and won't pressure her. With all her health issues, that's the last thing she needs! 

[Pink Muffin]

And now the godly mentor is quoting conspiracy theories. 

[Maggie Mae]

I didn't realize a private foundation had the ability to tax individuals. Thanks, Lori! Always Learning from you.

[smittykins]

5 hours ago, usmcmom said:

If a wife is not named as a joint account holder, what becomes of those accounts upon her husband's death?  I THINK there is a chance she will not automatically gain access to those funds. 

I bring this up because, as some of you may remember, my husband lost both of his parents in an eight month span. Most of their assets had clearly designsted beneficiaries; but there was one checking account that was only in his dad's name (his dad passed after his mothe)  Things are all a blur but that is part of the estate that had to go through probate.  

If this man has six accounts in his name only, is he preventing his wife from caliming those funds if he dies before her?  Don't these men think about providing for their familieis if their wives are left widows? 

 

When my husband passed in 2005, I had to produce a death certificate(and I think there was a six-month waiting period)before I could access his account(we had separate accounts for reasons).

[SongRed7]

37 minutes ago, Pink Muffin said:

And now the godly mentor is quoting conspiracy theories. 

Holy fuck!  I just checked that out. Lori's followers are not too bright at all.  All you have to do is google Aaron Russo and Nick Rockefeller (who may or may not even be a real person....I know details, details. Don't confuse them with facts) to get a load of the crazy conspiracies out there.  

This is like....hysterical. I have no other words.  She gone the full gamut: misguided, mean, hostile, judging, spoiled, entitled, and now totally off the deep end.

Something is seriously wrong with her. Next she'll be building a bomb shelter in her backyard filing it with Jim Baker's emergency food buckets:  https://store.jimbakkershow.com/product-category/food/entrees/buckets/

 

[NotQuiteMotY]

Hm. I think the only things that don't have both names on it are the car my husband bought well before we got married and maybe the internet provider. I should check on that last one... And it is both names, since I never changed mine. So am I good because we have joint accounts or awful because I still have the name I was born with, Lori? Inquiring minds and all.

[klein_roeschen]

33 minutes ago, Pink Muffin said:

And now the godly mentor is quoting conspiracy theories. 

And here we are again, the denial of working women/ mother's for centuries. Information about the women's worker movement as part of booth the women's movement and the worker's movement are only a tiny google search away.

29 minutes ago, Maggie Mae said:

I didn't realize a private foundation had the ability to tax individuals. Thanks, Lori! Always Learning from you.

Don't tell that a german "Reichsbürger". They believe the german goverment is a private company, because we are still occupied by the allied forces (they only mention the US part of the allied force, by the way). And the reason for this, because the official name of the german constitution didn't had the word constitution in it and is for that lack not valied.

[ladyicantxplain]

Well, that explains a lot of the warped thinking and preaching we've seen, if she's been reading these "red pill" sites and running down rabbit holes of "end time conspiracies"...mercy of God, say it isn't so.

I mean, there is some truth to be found in doing this, but again, is this to be the focus of a "Biblical Woman?®"

Next, we'll be hearing about all of Q's latest data dumps.

[Maggie Mae]

1 hour ago, klein_roeschen said:

Don't tell that a german "Reichsbürger". They believe the german goverment is a private company, because we are still occupied by the allied forces (they only mention the US part of the allied force, by the way). And the reason for this, because the official name of the german constitution didn't had the word constitution in it and is for that lack not valied.

I'm a little confused by this. Is this like a german version of the sovereign citizen "thing" ?