I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

otter

Oh, wow.... now I'm really intrigued! 

lindasa, I am 5/8ths German, plus 1/8 Swiss from Canton Zürich, so that might count as well; but I've never tasted what I knew to be German dumplings.  My mom's family was half Scandinavian and half German, but she seemed to go out of her way to avoid cooking anything ethnic.  There were "family recipes," of course, but nothing that could be recognized as German or Scandinavian.  My Dad was mostly German with that bit of Swiss-German, and his family was more likely to serve authentic German dishes.  But I don't remember any of his family fixing German dumplings.

So...  You said you weren't looking for a German potato-dumpling recipe (Kartoffelklösse).  Those I found easily on line, although there seems to be disagreement about whether you can use mashed potatoes or should stick with shredded/grated/riced potatoes (e.g., http://www.food.com/recipe/kartoffelkloesse-german-potato-dumplings-59894)

There apparently is a variant of Kartoffelklösse that uses flour and/or bread rather than grated potatoes, and those could simply be called "Klösse" or "Knödel". 

And then there are German spätzle dumplings (e.g., http://allrecipes.com//Recipe/german-spaetzle-dumplings/Detail.aspx or http://www.fantes.com/spaetzle.html).  Wow.  Sort of like stubby, free-form noodles, I guess.  I've never even seen those, much less tasted them, although they sound wickedly rich and fun. 

Finally, I thought I had also noticed a recipe for flat-noodle "dumplings" (wide and thick), but I can't find it now.  Sounds like I have some experiments to carry out, next time it's my turn to cook....

otter  (having fun with umlauts today)

bluedahlia

Roast, mashed potatoes and corn.

crazy4carrots

SEMMEL KNODEL

Read more about it at www.cooks.com/rec/view/0,174,158173-242206,00.html Content Copyright © 2011 Cooks.com - All rights reserved. 8 to 10 day old buns 1 2/3 c. lukewarm milk 1 sm. onion 20 g. butter Salt water (enough to cover the dumplings Salt 3 to 4 eggs 1 tsp. parsley I use German buns (day old) or Mega Food buns. Slice buns fine; add salt and pour warm milk over. Let set 10 to 20 minutes, covered. Cut the onions and parsley fine and saute in the butter. Pour over the cut up buns. Add eggs; mix all ingredients well with hands. Wet hands each time you form a dumpling, rolling them in hands until round and firm and holding together. Make a test dumpling. If it is too loose, add a little bread crumbs; if it is too hard, add a little more milk. Simmer the dumplings in salt water with lid half off. Remove dumplings and serve them on a platter with veal, pork roast, or beef roast.   So... this is one recipe I found.  I'd probably add a half cup of sauteed onions and would be tempted to use stale rye bread.  That's the way I've had them in Austria and at the Czech restaurant in Toronto.   Edited to add:  Don't forget the gravy!  Otherwise, not so good!

1Athena1

Rosemary, taking away the earnings cap sounds like a good idea, but one of the marketing genius aspects about SS (if you could call it that) has been its appeal amongst both rich and poor. Social Security is extremely progressive as it stands because it essentially benefits the poor more than the rich, since the rich do not depend on SS for retirement or disability benefits and yet they contribute like everyone else. It strikes a balance between a program that requires input on the part of the beneficiary and one that benefits society. As such, it is consistently one of the most highly rated social programs in this country's history.

But imagine what would happen if a rich person earning $3 million/year had to put seven percent of that into an SS fund only to get a tiny fraction upon retirement. What would happen? That person would likely lobby congress to get rid of the whole program and succeed.

And what would happen if the program enabled this person to get a Social Security retirement check equivalent to his contributions? He or she might still protest, because there are better ways to invest money in order to achieve a higher return upon retirement; at that point, SS would cease to be an insurance policy and become a gamble.

I believe the earnings cap should be raised (as it has been) but not eliminated. I also agree that the retirement age needs to be raised above the rate set by the Greenspan commission, with waivers for people who do physical work such as construction.

Unfortunately, those who wish to do away with Social Security, tiny minority that they are, have succeeded in muddying the waters by pretending that the debate is not about abolishing but, rather, about "modernizing" or "reforming" or "overhauling" (pick your term).

And so it is that we have political discourse on this issue in which people from many sides are using the same language about Social Security but with very different meanings. I think this probably explains why White Rabbit is receiving the literature she mentioned in the mail, while Shirley is hearing something completely different. There are indeed crossed wires in this debate and it takes a very, very careful listener to distinguish between those who want genuine reform and others who want to do away with the program under the guise of a nice-sounding word like "reform" because it disturbs their ideological notion of every man for himself.

Alpal

Athena - I double checked and was delighted that my original post said "I think" - whew! I also think that to say spousal benefits have nothing to do with SS woes, might be a stretch. After all, less money paid out would result in a larger surplus. I've spent the last little while trying to find some figures for the amount of money paid out in spousal benefits but was unsuccessful. Then I remembered  that lots of spouses who actually contributed to the system themselves elect to take the benefit based on their spouse's income because it is more money. If anyone knows where I can find number of $$ paid to spouses who did not contribute, please tell me because I certainly can't find that information. It would be interesting to see just how much this benefit costs us. 

The real intent of my original post (doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out) was to point out the hypocrisy of continually complaining about those who contribute nothing to the system.

1Athena1

Alpal, I eventually understood your intent (that's why I later wrote a post saying to you: "thanks for stirring my juices....") but it was far from clear at first and it apparently hurt a few people here who felt targeted/guilty, etc..., so I thought I would clear up the fact. I am familiar with your views, and almost always find myself on the same side as you; however, I also make a point of not assuming that what a person thinks about one issue will be true across a broad range. I know that some of my positions are ideologically eclectic. Hence, I took your post literally the first time.

Anyway....

Remember that Social Security is a social insurance program. This means that the people paying into it do so not only for themselves but for their next of kin, just as an employee can have health insurance for her whole family of five but is the only one paying to the system offered by the employer. And now let's take the example of a widow. I know that wasn't your original example, but I will take it here to showcase how there is not a net loss: a man worked 20 years and contributed to SS and then died before retiring and his wife got the benefits. You could say that the wife got benefits without contributing directly. But the husband paid in all his life without getting a dime back. So the net risk or loss was zero.

So it isn't as though Social Security finds itself paying out monies the way Lloyds of London would pay millions if a Triple Crown winner it had insured for a pot of cash was suddenly  kidnapped or maimed. That kind of underwriting would certainly be a drain. This system, instead, is very low risk because the pool of people involved is so large and because the pay-in is mandatory for workers who participate in the system, which is the vast majority in the country.

So the built-in risk to the Treasury, if you will, is minimal. The bigger risk is for the working taxpayer who may or may not live or work long enough to qualify. Payouts to spouses and children are thus not an added cost of expense, but merely part of the payout.

The real risk is in the tectonic demographic shift, and, frankly, the only way to solve that particular problem is either by somehow exploding the working population or cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, changing the way initial benefit calculations are indexed, etc.... Ways to solve the program range from Draconian to merely painful.

Cheers

Beesie

I'm not familiar with semmelknoedel but I did try to make spatzle once. It did not work out well. I think you need the right equipment. 

BarbaraA

Linda, I LOVE sauerbraten (soaked in my special sauce recipe for two days) and then I braise it and boil dumplings in the sauce. OMG! Let me dig out the recipe. I need to make some of that! 

BarbaraA

Melissa, I think we are policing our thread very well. Thanks for dropping by.

Bren-2007

Oh god .. it's that time of day when y'all are starting to make me very hungry!

River_Rat

salmon, baked potato and salad - which I went and cooked in a real hurry and ate early because some people here were making me hungry 

Alpal

Taco chili - delicious! Has corn and black beans in it, so no need for any kind of side, but think I'll fix some cornbread to go with it. We don't usually do dessert - you'd never guess that by looking at me!

IronJawedBCAngel

Chicken enchiladas and frijoles tonight, although I got a late start on the beans, so we will be eating late.

Lots of great topics today, just catching up on everything. Wish I had logged on earlier so that I could have participated.  Probably just as well as I am pretty fired up about the seemingly misogynist agenda of the GOP.                                                                                             Sorry for those who have lost someone they love to this beast called breast cancer.  It's been a rough month.

Bren-2007

Taco chili sounds good .. I'm just getting ready to take the cornbread out of the oven!

Bren

1Athena1

Opening the fridge and peering in....how about some cranberry orange apple crisp with whipped cream?

otter

The final decision:  venison roast, baked potatoes, and whatever veggie hubs decides to heat up. 

I am ambivalent.  Uncertain.  Schizophrenic.  Okay, probably hypocritical.  I don't see any of these social welfare issues as "pure".  There is no all-or-none, black-or-white, when it comes to services that "should" be provided by the government.  For me, there are no bright lines, whether we're dealing with free education, financial security for the elderly, health care, transportation systems, firefighting, municipal water supplies, electrical utilities, garbage collection... 

When given the authority to choose, different communities choose to provide different levels of service.  Some local governments privatize nearly everything; while others offer every conceivable service, courtesy of the taxpayers.  Some governments "supplement" public employees' salaries with ridiculously generous benefits packages; others are more, um, ... pragmatic (or ruthless).  I am always somewhere in the middle.

I am not quite as ambivalent when it comes to employer-employee relations.  I now live in a right-to-work state (http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm), and I firmly believe no employee should be required to join a union or pay union "dues" or membership fees unless he/she chooses to do so.  I recognize that, by law, the benefits won through collective bargaining must be extended to all employees of a unit, even if those employees are not members of the union.  So unions fight very hard to maintain "union shops" and to block the passage of right-to-work laws.  Some of that is at stake in Wisconsin, isn't it?  But, it's also my understanding that non-union employees can be required to pay an amount equal to the cost incurred by the collective bargaining unit in negotiating the benefits they receive.  Is that not true?

I realize I'm leaving out all the debate about public employees having to pay more toward their health care and retirement plans.  I really don't have much sympathy for people who want to keep getting those benefits for free, or for an absurdly small personal investment -- especially not these days, when health care costs for everyone are going up, and companies, as well as city and state governments, are operating with deficits.

I pointed out in an earlier post that the political climate in Wisconsin has taken a dramatic turn from left to right.  In the 2010 election, the Democrats lost nearly every major state office, both chambers of the state legislature, and the majority of the state's Congressional seats, as well as one of the two U.S. Senate seats.  In a state that has been famous for its leftward leanings over the past few decades (as well as pre-WW II), that shift must seem like a 9.0 on the political Richter scale. 

The governor of Wisconsin is feeling his oats right now.  Given the surge of power his party has experienced, he probably figures he has little to lose by standing his ground.  If the majority of voters in Wisconsin really support a more conservative approach (as is suggested by the 2010 election results), then the voters might be running out of patience with the protests, the school closures, and the senators-in-absentia.

After all, it will only take one Democratic senator to make a quorum.  And, the Republicans don't need any of the Democratic senators if all they want is the "simple" quorum needed to vote on non-budgetary bills.  I've heard that referred to as the "nuclear option."

otter

Alpal

Who knows? Maybe she's being proactive.

Kindergarten

Dear Sandy, I have not been on here for ages, and just thought I would peek and I mean Peek, because my comment will be short and simple, because I don't want to offend anyone. I saw your inspiring post and felt I needed to reply.Please don't ever apologize for deciding to be a stay at home Mom. You sound like the most wonderful mother ever. You(we) have the hardest job in the world, 24/7. Unfortunatley, we just don't get a salary or medical benefits, wouldn't that be great if the government paid us to stay home and raise our children? I did go back to teaching when my sons entered high school , but I only had 2 children. I chose to teach in a Christian school, where the pay was not the same as public, but the rewards were great. We are all trying to do the best we can, on top of having cancer. I really think it is O.K. to share our husband's or partner's Social Security Benefits and everything else for that matter. God bless you, Sandy!!!! Kathy

Marple

The Mods post was not a joke. (edit to add, JBinOK I posted this because you were asking.)

BarbaraA

Jbinok, we have had some issues with multi-user ID folks deleting posts usually over a weekend. Then when the mods arrive back on Monday, they have a bunch of PM's about how the posts deleted were not violating the rules. Apparently, the deleters strike on weekends and delete posts they disagree with. This wreaks havoc on some of us (me included and I lean conservative). The deletions appear to be directed toward our liberal sisters mostly but I am also a target.

Just the lay of the land. When the fur starts flying, talk about brussel sprouts, pigs feet and okra. Then mention what you are having for dinner.

Folks feel free to add on anything I may have forgotten to tell out new poster.

1Athena1

Ok, I am going to be a mega-troll here and be cruel and make everyone feel guilty. Now that we have laid out our dinner tables with incredible recipies and decided to tuck in, I have ditched temptation and am out the door to my spinning class!! Feel very very guilty, everyone..... I, meanwhile, will savor my triumphalism, continue to gloat, and I hope I really do keep up these good habits. If/when I fall off the wagon, I can easy keep it a secret.

(stealing away)...

Of course, Lewing will always put us to shame with her 11 mile runs.

Marple

I took the dogs for a 10 minute stroll.  But I struggled through semi-deep snow.  Surely that counts for.........LMBO.........NOTHING!!!!

Bren-2007

JB .. the mods weren't kidding around with us.  This thread has a long history (2 other threads were deleted in their entirety) of at times getting out of hand and tempers start flying.

So .. your suggestion was a good one.  If this thread is troublesome for someone, they shouldn't read it.

Bren

Kindergarten

Please forgive me Sunny, I called you Sandy. I have a best friend, Sandy, who is in a similar situation. Please accept my apology. God bless you, Sunny!!!!!

208sandy

Sharon - must be something in the Ontario water supply - I took my dog out for a 10 minute stroll also but not in as much snow.

Sandy

Bren-2007

I walked my dogs today too .. down in my fields.  The trek back up is a climb, but we love wandering around and exploring everything!  Pretty soon the turtles will be back out and running from the dogs.

Bren

floralgal

delete

Marple

OK, so I exaggerated a bit on the snow depth.  Still, I struggled a little bit.

otter

We don't have a dog, but we don't have any snow, either. 

Edited to add:

otter

lassie11

Dare I ask - what is a right to work state? Doesn't everyone have the right to work in any state? And how is it fair to benefit directly from the work of a union yet choose not to pay for the benefits? It sounds as if that means "union busting" state. Language is sooo tricky.

pork chop baked with baby carrots, broccoli, and mushrooms finished off with a sample of the oatmeal cookies I baked today (left out the calories)