I did not mention El Toro because the varieties of Bermuda you have referenced are a lot finer textured and much darker in color. Nothing wrong with El Toro and worth considering if you have some shade issues to deal with. You did raise a red flag in my mind when you asked " Do you think it is reasonable to go with Tifway 419 and use a Walker Rotary Mower most of the time if we keep it under control? Or do I need to go with another grass? Here is the problem all the varieties you are looking at are fine and dwarf textured. Tifway-419 can be mowed with a rotary type mower as long as it is a quality one that can get down to 1-inch, but performs better between ½ to ¾ of an inch with a reel type mower. TifSport will need a reel type mower because it needs to be down around ½ inch. But here is the kicker the TifGreen or TefEagle go one step beyond a reel mower if you are serious about a putting green as they need a very expensive greens mower. A greens mower is a reel type on steroids and a precision machine requiring a lot of maintenance in the form of blade sharpening and alignment. I think you mentioned 28,000?ft2 lawn and that gets into the riding type, and if you are serious about using a fine textured Bermuda like TifSport, you need to get a riding with ganged reel mower, and a greens mower for the putting green. So think carefully about this. If you intend to maintain 2/3 of an acre of grass and cannot do this, then you need to consider another grass type that does not need to be mowed at an inch or less. Zoysia falls into this category and is maintained between 1 to 2 inches. Not to mention Zoysia grows slowly and only requires mowing every 7 to 10 days vs 2 to 3 times a week for Bermuda, and every other day for a putting green. If budget is a concern I suggest you look at Tifway-I (aka 419), only one grass I know outperforms in its class which is TifSport. However Tifway in my area sells for 65 to 85 per pallet, and Tifsport 2 to 3 times that cost. I sure hope you have an idea how much TifGreen and TifEagle go for, prices vary from 500 to 900 per pallet.

My friends' in town all go to the same orthodontist. And, I am telling you every one of their kids had braces starting in 2nd grade. Friends told me in doing it that early, they probably wouldn't have to have braces later on. But, now a couple-three years later, they are back into braces. I don't know enough about it to really decide. I did do some research on the internet, and came across a report from some dentists (have no idea where I found it, it's been about a year ago), stating that 95 percent of kids getting braces that early really do not need them, and it's best to wait until all their baby teeth are gone. They claimed it was sort of a scam by orthodontia now. I have two friend's in my circle who are dentists and of course their kids started early in braces. They, of course, are very good friends with a couple of orthodontists in town who puts braces on all my friends kids. My son's dentist (I don't go to my friend's husband who is a dentist) is very conservative and sending me to an orthodontist who doesn't live in my town to evaluate my son. For us, it's not really the money issue, in getting my son braces too early, it's the fact he would have to go through wearing braces twice that bother me. Like I said, I really don't know everything about it, I just personally feel that it's what everyone does now, in certain circles (yes, my circle of friends) and I need to find out more about it in order for me to become more comfortable with our decision. This post was edited by olliesmom on Fri, Jun 27, 14 at 13:11

I'm not retired yet, but I'm getting close. I anticipate retiring at age 55. We've planned carefully, and we expect things to work out like this: Early retirement years: With our house and cars paid for, my pension will cover the bare-bones of our month-to-month needs. I will have my basic medical paid, and I will be able to cover him (at cost). We will be eleven years too young for Social Security. We intend to work either part-time or seasonally rather than dip into our savings too early. For example, if I substitute teach 8 days a month, I'll have as much money as I make now. We're also interested in "fun work" such as working at the seasonal Renaissance Faire. We have plans for travel and other such things in these years. We are not against using our savings at this point, but we want to do it sparingly /want to see that money continue to grow for later years, when we may need it more for medical issues, and we may see inflation eat into our spending power. Middle retirement years: 67 is full retirement age for both of us, and we're operating on the assumption that we'll begin collecting Social Security at 67. With two Social Security checks, we stop any part-time work in which we've been involved, and we will have more money than we are spending now ... and we won't have withdrawn much from our retirement savings. Later retirement years: Looking at our ages and health, this probably means just me. I'm assuming his Social Security will be gone, and we are assuming that inflation will hurt the value of my pension ... so it may not be enough to cover my basic needs at this point, especially because I may be paying for house cleaning, etc. -- things that I won't need to pay for in early retirement. However, at this point it'll be fine for me to dip into our savings. We have calculated the above general thoughts using real numbers, and we feel confident about financial security in our retirement years. Our biggest concern, of course, is medical needs. Regardless of what was taught, any teacher should use correct spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure. I do agree that anyone who teaches should be able to write well; however -- in my experience -- it's the elementary teachers who come across worst in terms of the written word. All retirement programs that cover governmental employees (at any level of government) are funded by taxpayers. Did you mean something else? False, but not entirely false. I'm a state employee. When I retire, I will have contributed 8-10% of my salary to the state pension fund for 30 years. That money has been invested and has grown. The taxpayers won't be funding my retirement; rather, the state will be returning my own investment to me. HOWEVER, a pension is a defined benefit program, which means I cannot outlive my investment. If I retire at 55 and live only 5 years, the state wins ... they get to keep a bunch of my money. and I'd die unhappy knowing that I couldn't leave that money to my kids. On the other hand, if I live to be 105, my money will run out, and -- yes -- the taxpayers will kick in for my later years. Actuaries work on these numbers, and they predict how long the average employee will live -- and that's how they decide how much to withdraw from our paychecks. On average, people will live just about long enough to "make back" their own contributions plus interest earned. I'm fine on retirement funds and withdrawing 3.8% per year. I'll take SS at age 62 since there's no reason not to and will leave me more disposable income. Well, there is one reason not to take SS at age 62: For every year you take your benefits early (early meaning prior to your full retirement age, which is probably 67), you sacrifice 6% of your benefit. To say it differently, if you could collect $1500 at full retirement age ... and instead you take it five years early (at age 62), your monthly benefit would only be $1050 ... that's a great deal of income to give up for the rest of your life. Obviously, I made several assumptions in that equation, but consider exactly how much that 6% per year would be for you personally.

I'm 74 and have been exercising 3 times weekly now for 11 years. I really concentrate on my legs as they need to work for me when my poor old damaged lungs can't. I could still wear shorts in the summer until about 5 years ago when gravity finally got my knees. It was inevitable. I have very strong muscles in my legs but it's the skin, not the muscles. Yes, I have been a sun worshiper for many years. It doesn't help my skin but tanned saggy skin looks SO much better when it's tanned. At 60, you don't yet have the old bruised, scared legs that will appear over the next 10 years. Out skin on our calves thins and a small bump can result in a deep cut. My lower legs look like someone has been beating them with a stick! But when they're tan, they look much better and the scars and bruises don't show as much. It is very hard to age when one is vain. One must do the best one can and accept the rest with humility.