"Shelley B" <shelley~yaNOSPAMhoo.com> wrote in message
news:kNdTc.118857$8_6.45544~attbi_s04...
  > THanks, I will enjoy it and I do agree that technology has
  > come a LONG way. I knew you weren't telling me to try it
  > with the vodka and in a couple years, I may try that too!
  >
  > Shelley

Probably when the child turns 13. ;>) c

  >
  >
  > Anon wrote:
     > > "Shelley B" <shelley~yaNOSPAMhoo.com> wrote in message
     > > news:VfcTc.283076$JR4.203289~attbi_s54...
     > >
     > >>I don't think I'll be mixing with vodka anytime soon but
     > >>I'll for sure have to try it with the lemon juice.
     > >>
     > >>Shelley
     > >>
     > >>Anon wrote:
     > >>
     > >>
     > >>>"Cheri" <gservice~inreachnogarbage.com> wrote in message
     > >>>news:Wc6dnTfTcMzd34DcRVn-vQ~inreach.com...
     > >>>
     > >>>
     > >>>>Try the Crystal Light Sunrise Classic Orange. That stuff
     > >>>>tastes so
much
     > >>>>like OJ that you won't miss the real thing. Congrats on
     > >>>>the baby. :-)
     > >>>>
     > >>>>--
     > >>>>Cheri
     > >>>
     > >>>
     > >>>I agree with Cheri, Crystal Light Sunrise Orange is good,
     > >>>even better
if
     > >
     > > you
     > >
     > >>>add a little lemon juice or 1/4 cup of high pulp orange
     > >>>juice. I can't
     > >
     > > tell
     > >
     > >>>the difference, even when mixed with vodka.
     > >>>
     > >>>Anon
     > >>>
     > >>>
     > >
     > >
     > > Sorry, I was replying to Cheri, I sure wouldn't recommend
     > > vodka for a pregnant lady. If you like OJ, try the Crystal
     > > Light with a little high
pulp
     > > OJ and/or lemon juice mixed in. It tastes almost like the
     > > real thing.
     > >
     > > Congratulations on your pregnancy, I hope you have an easy
     > > time of it.
My
     > > late wife had a hard time with our daughter. Treatment and
     > > monitoring
has
     > > been greatly improved since those days.
     > >
     > > Anon
     > >

  > Probably when the child turns 13. ;>) c
  >
lol quite possibly and then I won't stop until they're 30!

Shelley

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:54:49 GMT, Shelley B
<shelley~yaNOSPAMhoo.com> wrote:

     >> and we're ready for some quieter times and getting
     >> ready for this baby (due to make its appearance on the
     >> 2nd of April)
     >>
     >>Shelley

Just think, you can get a full years worth of deductions if
the kiddo shows up before the 15th!

Sleepy
-----------------------------------------------
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
------------------------------------------------

Either that or you move to another state...without him/her!

Actually, I enjoyed my daughter's early teen years a lot. It
was from 17-19 that was rough on both of us.

Being a parent is great. Cherish it and enjoy the moments of
magic it can offer. It's hard work but those moments and
having them grow into really great young adults is worth it.
The time goes very, very quickly. c

"Shelley B" <shelley~yaNOSPAMhoo.com> wrote in message
news:3UqTc.250671$a24.11131~attbi_s03...
  >
     > > Probably when the child turns 13. ;>) c
     > >
  > lol quite possibly and then I won't stop until they're 30!
  >
  > Shelley

"Sleepyman" <bush~lies.com> wrote in message
news:nqnvh0drsju3bkpd1altd6fmmjhi59qsdr~4ax.com...
  > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:54:49 GMT, Shelley B
  > <shelley~yaNOSPAMhoo.com> wrote:
     > >>and getting ready for this baby (due to make its
     > >>appearance on the 2nd
of April)

  > Just think, you can get a full years worth of deductions if
  > the kiddo
shows up before the 15th!
  >

You get a full year's worth of deductions if the kid shows up
before midnight on 31st Dec. too.

I don't know why all the hoopla about the *first* baby of the
new year. I'd think that the parents of the *last* baby of the
old year would be pretty happy about the timing too! And the
newshounds ought to take note of that. bj

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 02:22:59 GMT, "bj"
<bjones44~bellatlantic.net> wrote:

     >>"Sleepyman" <bush~lies.com> wrote in message
     >>news:nqnvh0drsju3bkpd1altd6fmmjhi59qsdr~4ax.com...
       >>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:54:49 GMT, Shelley B
       >>> <shelley~yaNOSPAMhoo.com> wrote:
       >>> >>and getting ready for this baby (due to make its
       >>> >>appearance on the 2nd
     >>of April)
     >>
       >>> Just think, you can get a full years worth of deductions
       >>> if the kiddo
     >>shows up before the 15th!
       >>>
     >>
     >>You get a full year's worth of deductions if the kid shows
     >>up before midnight on 31st Dec. too.
     >>
     >>I don't know why all the hoopla about the *first* baby of
     >>the new year. I'd think that the parents of the *last* baby
     >>of the old year would be pretty happy about the timing too!
     >>And the newshounds ought to take note of that. bj

OK, but how does that work? FI, if your taxes for 2004 are due
on April 15, 2005, are you saying that you can somehow get a
deduction for a child born Dec 31, 2005 on your 2004 taxes? If
that were to work you would have to file a supplemental return
I suppose, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. But then
again most of the tax code doesn't make sense to me so I
suppose anything is possible.

Sleepy
-----------------------------------------------
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 02:22:59 GMT, "bj"
<bjones44~bellatlantic.net> wrote:

     >>"Sleepyman" <bush~lies.com> wrote in message
     >>news:nqnvh0drsju3bkpd1altd6fmmjhi59qsdr~4ax.com...
       >>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:54:49 GMT, Shelley B
       >>> <shelley~yaNOSPAMhoo.com> wrote:
       >>> >>and getting ready for this baby (due to make its
       >>> >>appearance on the 2nd
     >>of April)
     >>
       >>> Just think, you can get a full years worth of deductions
       >>> if the kiddo
     >>shows up before the 15th!
       >>>
     >>
     >>You get a full year's worth of deductions if the kid shows
     >>up before midnight on 31st Dec. too.
     >>
     >>I don't know why all the hoopla about the *first* baby of
     >>the new year. I'd think that the parents of the *last* baby
     >>of the old year would be pretty happy about the timing too!
     >>And the newshounds ought to take note of that. bj

OK, but how does that work? FI, if your taxes for 2004 are due
on April 15, 2005, are you saying that you can somehow get a
deduction for a child born Dec 31, 2005 on your 2004 taxes? If
that were to work you would have to file a supplemental return
I suppose, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. But then
again most of the tax code doesn't make sense to me so I
suppose anything is possible.

Sleepy
-----------------------------------------------
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:02:05 GMT, Shelley B
<shelley~yaNOSPAMhoo.com> wrote:

  >Andrea - thank you for the response and congrats to you on
  >your pregnancy! When are you due? I don't have an endo - just
  >an internist. My OB is a high risk OB and she was the one
  >that recommended the internist. The internist is one that
  >works only with diabetes and pregnancy and she really does
  >seem to know what she's talking about - she's just a bit
  >harsh when she's sharing the knowledge and I'm very emotional
  >so I didn't take it very well. lol
  >
  >My internist said that I'd be on so much insulin by the end
  >that it wasn't worth it to get me a pen because I'd be
  >filling it up constantly. I don't know how to compare because
  >as of now I don't need the insulin so I don't know what kind
  >of dosage she'll put me on when the time comes. I'm very glad
  >to hear from everyone, though, that giving the shots is not
  >nearly as bad as I always thought it would be. The only
  >needles I had ever seen before my diabetes were the vaccines
  >and the needle they use to take your blood at a blood bank
  >and those are HUGE so I think I'm comparing apples and
  >oranges. (or watermellons and kiwis?)
  >
  >I just found diabeticmommys.com this morning and when I was
  >reading the owner's birth story I found myself crying for her
  >and her terrible experiences. I'll make sure to join in there
  >and start chatting with people there. I need all the advice I
  >can get!!
  >
  >Thanks again, Andrea.
  >
  >Shelley

I think you just coined a new catch phrase for the
diabetic groups.

"Watermelons and Kiwis" works on so many levels.

Mâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org

In tribute to the United States of America and the State of
Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with
strife and terrorism.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."

...Theodore Roosevelt

Have you heard of the NO-CARB Diet for 2004?

NO C-heney NO A-shcroft NO R-umsfeld or Rice NO B-ush

Sleepyman wrote:

  > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 02:22:59 GMT, "bj"
  > <bjones44~bellatlantic.net> wrote:
  >
  >
       >>>"Sleepyman" <bush~lies.com> wrote in message
       >>>news:nqnvh0drsju3bkpd1altd6fmmjhi59qsdr~4ax.com...
       >>>
       >>>>On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:54:49 GMT, Shelley B
       >>>><shelley~yaNOSPAMhoo.com> wrote:
       >>>>
       >>>>>>and getting ready for this baby (due to make its
       >>>>>>appearance on the 2nd
       >>>
       >>>of April)
       >>>
       >>>
       >>>>Just think, you can get a full years worth of deductions
       >>>>if the kiddo
       >>>
       >>>shows up before the 15th!
       >>>
       >>>You get a full year's worth of deductions if the kid shows
       >>>up before midnight on 31st Dec. too.
       >>>
       >>>I don't know why all the hoopla about the *first* baby of
       >>>the new year. I'd think that the parents of the *last* baby
       >>>of the old year would be pretty happy about the timing too!
       >>>And the newshounds ought to take note of that. bj
  >
  >
  > OK, but how does that work? FI, if your taxes for 2004 are
  > due on April 15, 2005, are you saying that you can somehow
  > get a deduction for a child born Dec 31, 2005 on your 2004
  > taxes? If that were to work you would have to file a
  > supplemental return I suppose, but it just doesn't make any
  > sense to me. But then again most of the tax code doesn't
  > make sense to me so I suppose anything is possible.
  >
  >
  > Sleepy
  > -----------------------------------------------
  > A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
  > ------------------------------------------------

From what I was always told (one of my kids was born in
January and four in March) you cannot get a deduction in
April for any child that was born after December 31st of the
year you are paying taxes for. I was not allowed to claim
those kids until we filed the year after their birth.

--
Chuck -ô¿ô- ~

Have you heard of the NO-CARB Diet for 2004?

NO C-heney NO A-shcroft NO R-umsfeld NO B-ush

Maybe I wasn't clear. You get the deduction for the kid
starting in the *tax year* that the kid was born -- March,
January, December, makes no diff.

You file *Tax year* 2004 in April 2005. The kid born 12/31/04
at 12:59pm gets his personal exemption (& mom & pop's
gratitude, no doubt). That kid that (you think) will be born
12/31/05 gets a deduction on your 05 taxes filed in April 06.

I *think* that the same principle applies at the other end --
if you're alive any part of the year you get the personal
exemption. I will no doubt be hearing more about this (and
estate tax intricacies) as my father died last week.

And, on a happier note, if you're married as of 12/31 that's
your status (so if you're thinking of a New Year's Eve
wedding, consult your tax advisor first! Maybe wait until
*after* midnight!). bj

"URAQT2" <URAQT2~B4ME.org> wrote in message
news:jD3Uc.302606$JR4.167587~attbi_s54...
  > Sleepyman wrote:
  >
     > > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 02:22:59 GMT, "bj"
     > > <bjones44~bellatlantic.net> wrote:
     > >
     > >
     > >>>"Sleepyman" <bush~lies.com> wrote in message
     > >>>news:nqnvh0drsju3bkpd1altd6fmmjhi59qsdr~4ax.com...
     > >>>
     > >>>>On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:54:49 GMT, Shelley B
     > >>>><shelley~yaNOSPAMhoo.com> wrote:
     > >>>>
     > >>>>>>and getting ready for this baby (due to make its
     > >>>>>>appearance on the
2nd
     > >>>
     > >>>of April)
     > >>>
     > >>>
     > >>>>Just think, you can get a full years worth of deductions
     > >>>>if the kiddo
     > >>>
     > >>>shows up before the 15th!
     > >>>
     > >>>You get a full year's worth of deductions if the kid
     > >>>shows up before midnight on 31st Dec. too.
     > >>>
     > >>>I don't know why all the hoopla about the *first* baby of
     > >>>the new year.
I'd
     > >>>think that the parents of the *last* baby of the old year
     > >>>would be
pretty
     > >>>happy about the timing too! And the newshounds ought to
     > >>>take note of
that.
     > >>>bj
     > >
     > >
     > > OK, but how does that work? FI, if your taxes for 2004 are
     > > due on April 15, 2005, are you saying that you can somehow
     > > get a deduction for a child born Dec 31, 2005 on your 2004
     > > taxes? If that were to work you would have to file a
     > > supplemental return I suppose, but it just doesn't make
     > > any sense to me. But then again most of the tax code
     > > doesn't make sense to me so I suppose anything is
     > > possible.
     > >
     > >
     > > Sleepy
     > > -----------------------------------------------
     > > A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
     > > ------------------------------------------------
  >
  > From what I was always told (one of my kids was born in
  > January and four in March) you cannot get a deduction in
  > April for any child that was born after December 31st of
  > the year you are paying taxes for. I was not allowed to
  > claim those kids until we filed the year after their birth.
  >
  > --
  > Chuck -ô¿ô- ~
  >
  > Have you heard of the NO-CARB Diet for 2004?
  >
  > NO C-heney NO A-shcroft NO R-umsfeld NO B-ush

No, you get a deduction on your 2004 return if the child is
born by December 1 of 2004. The return you file in April of
2005 is for 2004 and nothing that happens in 2005 affects your
2004. (There are some exceptions, but you don't want me to get
started on tax law . . .)

Sleepyman wrote:

  > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 02:22:59 GMT, "bj"
  > <bjones44~bellatlantic.net> wrote:
  >
  >
       >>>"Sleepyman" <bush~lies.com> wrote in message
       >>>news:nqnvh0drsju3bkpd1altd6fmmjhi59qsdr~4ax.com...
       >>>
       >>>>On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:54:49 GMT, Shelley B
       >>>><shelley~yaNOSPAMhoo.com> wrote:
       >>>>
       >>>>>>and getting ready for this baby (due to make its
       >>>>>>appearance on the 2nd
       >>>
       >>>of April)
       >>>
       >>>
       >>>>Just think, you can get a full years worth of deductions
       >>>>if the kiddo
       >>>
       >>>shows up before the 15th!
       >>>
       >>>You get a full year's worth of deductions if the kid shows
       >>>up before midnight on 31st Dec. too.
       >>>
       >>>I don't know why all the hoopla about the *first* baby of
       >>>the new year. I'd think that the parents of the *last* baby
       >>>of the old year would be pretty happy about the timing too!
       >>>And the newshounds ought to take note of that. bj
  >
  >
  > OK, but how does that work? FI, if your taxes for 2004 are
  > due on April 15, 2005, are you saying that you can somehow
  > get a deduction for a child born Dec 31, 2005 on your 2004
  > taxes? If that were to work you would have to file a
  > supplemental return I suppose, but it just doesn't make any
  > sense to me. But then again most of the tax code doesn't
  > make sense to me so I suppose anything is possible.
  >
  >
  > Sleepy
  > -----------------------------------------------
  > A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
  > ------------------------------------------------

"JHA" <jadams~rossinilaw.com> wrote in message
news:10i4f6shpvri4cc~corp.supernews.com...
  > No, you get a deduction on your 2004 return if the child is
  > born by December 1 of 2004. The return you file in April of
  > 2005 is for 2004 and nothing that happens in 2005 affects
  > your 2004. (There are some exceptions, but you don't want me
  > to get started on tax law . . .)

You can deduct some contributions to your retirement accounts.

Sleepyman <bush~lies.com> wrote:
  : On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 02:22:59 GMT, "bj"
  : <bjones44~bellatlantic.net> wrote:

  : >>"Sleepyman" <bush~lies.com> wrote in message :
     >>news:nqnvh0drsju3bkpd1altd6fmmjhi59qsdr~4ax.com... : >>> On
     >>Fri, 13 Aug
2004 14:54:49 GMT, Shelley B <shelley~yaNOSPAMhoo.com> : >>>
wrote: : >>>
     >>and getting ready for this baby (due to make its appearance
     >>on the 2nd : of April) : >> : >>> Just think, you can get a
     >>full years worth of
deductions if the kiddo : >>shows up before the 15th! : >>> :
     >> : >>You get a full year's worth of deductions if the kid
shows up before :
     >>midnight on 31st Dec. too. : >> : >>I don't know why all
     >>the hoopla
about the *first* baby of the new year. I'd : >>think that the
parents of the *last* baby of the old year would be pretty :
     >>happy about the timing too! And the newshounds ought to take
note of that. : >>bj

  : OK, but how does that work? FI, if your taxes for 2004 are
  : due on :
April 15, 2005, are you saying that you can somehow get a
deduction : for a child born Dec 31, 2005 on your 2004 taxes?
If that were to work : you would have to file a supplemental
return I suppose, but it just : doesn't make any sense to me.
But then again most of the tax code : doesn't make sense to me
so I suppose anything is possible.

  : Sleepy

If your baby is born during calender year 2004 (only until
Midnight Dec.
31) you will get the deduction for the baby for the whole
calender yer 2004. If the baby is born after midnight,,
therefore on Jan 1 2005, there will be no deduction for
2004 even though you don't have to file your taxes until
April 15, 2005. This April 2 baby will be a tax deduction
only in 2005 and on.

Sorry to rain on your parade, Sleepy.

Wendy

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:10:40 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"
<wbaker~panix.com> wrote:

       >>>If your baby is born during calender year 2004 (only until
       >>>Midnight Dec.
       >>>31) you will get the deduction for the baby for the whole
       >>> calender yer 2004. If the baby is born after midnight,,
       >>> therefore on Jan 1 2005, there will be no deduction for
       >>> 2004 even though you don't have to file your taxes
       >>> until April 15, 2005. This April 2 baby will be a tax
       >>> deduction only in 2005 and on.
       >>>
       >>>Sorry to rain on your parade, Sleepy.
       >>>
       >>>Wendy

Thanks for the explanation Wendy. Not my parade to rain on,
thank goodness....

Sleepy