AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > February > 22 > Entry
Are Americans becoming obsessed with work to the detriment of family?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
I’d like to take this opportunity to illustrate the joys of overworking so often overlooked.
Warning: Humorless conservatives will miss the point of this column.
Overworking gives you “opportunity.” Opportunity” is a corporate buzzword for “orders from the boss.” You’ll hear this word used in your yearly review in phrases like “this is an opportunity for growth,” which safely translates into “change or be fired.” There are also “opportunities for growth” at home. But these usually require psychological counseling and the droning sound of your spouse complaining about the same thing over and over again like never ending Chinese water torture. Growth opportunities at home require you to dredge up your childhood “issues” as an offering to the angry gods of matrimony, a wrathful lot who plague you with years of torment.
So you see, overworking is actually a pleasant experience when looked at from the right perspective.
Another benefit of long hours at the office is the white-collar collegiality. So long as you can type on a computer, you can fill your day with e-mails, replies to e-mails and more e-mails. You’re communicating all day, every day. And don’t forget the meetings. It takes five e-mails to confirm an average meeting, so this should take up at least an hour of the day. The rest of the day can be spent talking. You may even talk about work but probably your chatter is the office equivalent of political “spin.” Being “political” at work, is a code word for “devious,” or as it is translated in much of corporate America: “consensus building.” At home you’re forced to take out the trash, clean out the toilet and wash laundry. It’s a blue-collar career path with dead-end opportunities. The only chance of promotion is called procreation, bringing with it the job title of “Mother” or “Father.” But don’t be fooled by the hype of parenthood. This job doesn’t come with retirement benefits.
So with all of the advantages of overworking one wonders why anyone would consider underworking in order to experience family “bliss”?
Rebuttal
I must have missed the day when the angry gods of matrimony were handing out torment, because I find my marriage and kids a delight. And I must have missed the part about family drudgery — because like most things in our lives, I think much of marriage and family is what you make of it. Which is why it is a crying shame that so many Americans are so obsessed with work. The workaholics may not be crying, but I’ll bet their kids are.
Now, before my own family strings me up by my toenails for hypocrisy, I must confess that this is an entirely unfair week to be asking me this question, since I’ve been putting in 70-hour weeks on a book deadline. Thankfully, unlike many in corporate America, my heavy work weeks aren’t constant. Next week I can breathe again and take the kids to the park, and relieve my husband of his dinner-cooking-and-dishwashing duties. (Oh, forgive my political incorrectness! Note to self: remember that cooking dinner is blue-collar drudgery, not a way to love on my hard-working husband).
Unfortunately, way too many people can’t or won’t take a break. Although the average American works slightly more than 40 hours a week, one in five work over 50 hours — many more in some industries. Fifty hours becomes 55 or 60 with a commute. Sixty hours means leaving at 8 a.m., returning at 8 p.m. And one in five Americans does that every day of their lives. Combine that with the skimpiest vacations in the world, and its no wonder we probably also have the highest percentage of psychotherapists.
Or one of the highest rates of divorce.
Why do we do this to ourselves — and our families? While some have no choice, for most of us, nothing forces us to stay in a high-paying job with punishing hours. Nothing but the size of the monthly bills and, often, a lifestyle that forces us to work so much that we can’t enjoy the things that are most important — which aren’t things at all. For many of us, downsizing lifestyle expectations might make us far richer.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Just Being Me
February 25, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this
I don’t know how the commenting opened on the weekend, but this is a good, albeit redundant, topic.
Can’t wait to discuss it on Monday.
By Vermin8
February 27, 2006 07:13 AM | Link to this
From where I sit it’s just the opposite - too many people want to put out minimal effort for maximum paycheck and use their family as an excuse to dump their duties onto someone else. Some people want to dedicate themselves to work, some people to family. There’s nothing wrong with either approach as long as the person in question doesn’t neglect duties - such as the dedicated parent who’s always rushing out the door with minor “emergencies” leaving hapless coworkers to fill in for them. What I fear is that in the attempt to force business to become “family friendly”, business will become discriminatory towards those aren’t in society approved “families.” EG, the aforementioned parent not only gets away with dumping his or her work on a hapless single, childless coworker, it’s mandated by law.
By Brian Curtis
February 27, 2006 07:51 AM | Link to this
For once, everyone has a valid point. Vermin is right that becoming more “family friendly” shouldn’t be an excuse to dump excess duties on those without kids.
But Shaunti is right that too many people are too focused on work, regardless of what their “family & kids” situation may be. Worker productivity has gone up consistently over the past several decades in the U.S.—but our compensation has remained unchanged. Instead, we’re simply working more hours, and anyone who tries to hit the brakes is condemned as a “slacker” or “not doing their fair share.” Usually, that condemnation comes from people who ARE puttiing in 60-hour weeks and resent the fact that others don’t. When did “Type A” become a point of pride rather than a diagnosis of mental disorder?
And finally, Diane is right that the workplace is not the haven of respect and fulfillment that it was supposed to be (and that many women since the 1970s wrongly assumed it WOULD be, when they began to enter the workforce in droves). Work sucks; that’s why they have to pay you to do it.
The “privilege” of being available and on-call for extra work—because you have fewer family responsibilities—is, of course, no privilege at all. Sure, you get viewed as more of a team player—but as Diane notes, that this is just a buzzword, meaning “more readily exploited to get maximum work for minimum cost.” Does your extra 50% time and effort REALLY mean that much compared to the 3-5% pay raise you might qualify for as a result… compared to your coworker with kids, who puts in a normal workweek and doesn’t get the raise?
Who, exactly, is getting shafted in this arrangement: the parent? the nonparent? Or is the only real “winner” the same as it always is—the boss?
By Tim
February 27, 2006 07:57 AM | Link to this
When it comes to vacation time, the USA is pretty clueless. How many of us have to put up with 2 starting a job on 2 weeks vacation, and have to work 5 years to get a paltry 3 weeks. Those of us on 4 weeks are in a tiny minority. Compare this with some other countries where people start with 4 weeks from day one, and 5 or 6 weeks is not at all uncommon. So what is my point ? My point is this : Americans work longer hours, but their quality of work suffers. Few of us ever take a “real” vacation - I’m talking about 2 weeks touring another country or lying on the beach. And yes, that’s without cellphone, pager, and laptop. A better balance between work and real-life leads to happier and healthier employees. People go on vacation and come back truly refreshed, not constantly burned out like the typical American worker. The same applies to long working hours. In our current climate we all lose, both employees and employers. The bottom line here is that we need to work smarter, not “harder” or longer. Employers, listen up : offer good working hours, flex-time, and European style vacation plans, and you will find it easy to attract top talent without having to pay sky-high salaries. Just try it.
By Gob
February 27, 2006 08:18 AM | Link to this
Corporate America is never going to adopt more a European based work style. We have all been conditioned to feel guilty if we arent working long hours and always available for any emergency that comes up. Think about what those emergencies really are though. Unless you are a doctor, or in some other profession, what are often thought of as emergencies are nothing more than minor problems.
We are so acustomed to this lifestyle that we dont question it anymore (at least not as a culture). So for every one person who is willing to take a stand and not be available for to a petty boss at all hours, there are five people that are. That is why we will be getting less time off, longer hours, and a more general feeling of work becoming an even more dominating part of everyday life.
By Bruce
February 27, 2006 08:18 AM | Link to this
To me one hand washes the other. My job finances the necessities of my family and from time to time I am required to work overtime. I also, from time to time, have to work overtime at home with the family. I guess I am fortunate that both my family and employer are understanding to the importance of the other. But most importantly I understand their importance and try not to take advangate of either.
By Gob
February 27, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this
I dont think too many of the regulars on this board can complain about being overworked…
By Renee
February 27, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this
LOL Gob!!! Good one!
By Mike
February 27, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
At the end of life’s journey, what a person most often regrets is not having spent more time with family, never a desire of having spent more ‘time at the office’.
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this
yeah, it’s hard to say there’s a bunch of people obsessed with work around here. some folks are getting paid to blog.
but even when i leave the computer and go out into the “real world”, there aren’t that many people who are really obsessed with work. traffic in atlanta gets bad at 3:45pm. i’m sorry, but how hard are you working if you’ve left work and are on the road at 3:30? not that hard. especially when you went out for a hour and a half long lunch with a couple of errands strung onto the back end. sure, there’s a small minority of people that actually get to work at 7am, but if i show up to work at 8am, the parking lot in my building is virtually empty, and we’ve got attorneys, bankers, planners and consultants in the building where i work. all the types of people that we would expect to be putting in the long hours. but they’re not.
the other thing, is money. a lot of times the money can be a trap. you work harder to “get ahead”. but when you get ahead and are rewarded with a bigger, better bonus or salary, your spending goes up and you are no better off than you were before. so you decide to work harder some more. and when the next bonus or salary bump arrives, you’ve spent too much of it already. then you feel like you can’t quit your job, or cut back on the hours at work, bc you need the money to support your expenses.
if we would stop buying stuff that we really don’t need and focus on relationships instead of material, we’d be both happier and wealthier.
By Renee
February 27, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
good comment bla!
By Just Being Me
February 27, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
ROFL Gob!!!
Mornin all. Renee, wanna take bets on how long… never mind. I don’t wanna jinx it. We’ll just wait and see. Ssshhhh! Don’t say it.
Anyway, I’m really glad to see that both Diane and Shaunti have some good arguments and really level-headed comments. Although the two of them aren’t really too far from each other this week, I’m going to have to side with Shaunti just because she seemed to hit the nail on the head for me…
By Just Being Me
February 27, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
I agree with your ideas about the money trap, Bla. But, I’m not sure I agree with judging whether people in general are working hard based solely on the fact that rush hour starts at 3:45.
I think that overall, much of that can be attributed to employers willingness to support flexible schedules for their employees. Today, you’ll see a lot more professionals (and non-professionals, in some cases) working unconventional hours. In my former company, we had everyone from the janitorial staff to the EVPs working hours like 6-3 or 7-4, and in some cases, 10-7.
Obviously, my one experience can’t be used to explain why rush hour starts early. But, I do think this is a lot more common today than it ever was before.
By E. Lewis
February 27, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
What choice do we have? With so many jobs being outsourced and health benefit getting harder to come by, we have become increasingly worried over the stability, or lack thereof, of our jobs and will do whatever our employers ask us to do. Quite often this comes at the detriment of our families and productivity.
Of course, this is the American way. There are several countries where the employees work shorter days and they get weeks of paid vacations, yet their productivity and standard of living are higher that that of the USA:
By Just Being Me
February 27, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Good comment, Mike.
By E. Lewis
February 27, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Americans are working harder, not smarter or better.
By Gob
February 27, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
The bottom line on the work-family balance is that we all have a decision to make. It really is all about what you value. If i want to have a $500K house and a new car every few years, then i better plan on working a ton of hours and focusing the bulk of my attention on work.
If, however, i am happy living in a smaller house, driving a used car, cooking most meals, etc, then the job is less of an issue. It takes much less to sustain that standard of living (which in most of the world, even western Europe, what we consider slumming it, is considered middle class, or better), and if you are still happy, then you have the makings of a good life.
I myself am going to be undertaking a career change shortly that will require me to make those changes. Since i have made that decision, material possesions have much less of a stranglehold on my life.
By Just Being Me
February 27, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Very good point, E. Lewis. What choice do we have?
By Gob
February 27, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
JBM - My whole point is that we DO have a choice. It can be a difficult one, especially when we are constantly being bombarded by images of consumerism, but it is still a choice. Do i really need cable? Tivo? High-speed internet? these are all things that have become commonplace in so many people’s homes that we have begun to consider them necessities, rather than the luxuries that they really are.
By Mara
February 27, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
GOB!! LOL on the work load for regular posters.
And Bla, I sort of disagree with you on the type of people one would “expect” to work long hours. Bankers, for heavens sake? There’s a reason that short workdays are considered “Bankers hours”. Consultants? Lawyers? Nope, not on my lists. I’m sure that many do work long hours, but ask anyone on the production floor to list 10 jobs with long hours and I doubt that you’d see many of those professions on the list (doctor’s excluded, of course. Everyone knows doctors work long hours.) You’d probably hear more catagories from the bottom of the heap. Waitresses, Power Co. linemen, plumbers, construction workers, farmers.
And I am one of the “few” who get to work before seven in the morning (usually by 5:45 a.m., just like half the people in my company…) so I can tell you, not everyone abuses the timeclock like your co-workers. Perhaps because it’s a small company and forcing your co-workers to take up your slack becomes really obvious after the first couple times…
By RF
February 27, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
I had my students do some research on cost of living and wages. We came up with a basic figure of $15 an hour for one person to live in basic conditions on his/her own. Now, how many jobs out there, without advanced education, start you anywhere near that? Then try adding a spouse and kids to the budget!! I don’t know how people do it. As a single parent, I’ve found that quality of time spent with my family is more important than quantity. You have to learn to maximize the time you have available and spend it with family, not in front of the Idiot Box watching someone else’s ‘reality’. Unfortunately, the current cost of living almost requires two parents working. It’s been that way since the 70’s. But you can still work extra hours and have quality time with your family. You have to budget your time as carefully as you budget your money, and seriously evaluate your priorities. You can find money and time-saving measures if you want to badly enough. It’s all about your focus—either the dollar or the family.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
The family unit took a big hit with the advent of the 2 income family.
By Just Being Me
February 27, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
Gob, then I’ll disagree with you. While I do believe that consumerism, “keeping up with the Joneses,” not knowing the difference between needs and luxuries, wanting bigger houses and bigger vehicles and nicer toys may be a part of the problem, I also think that E. Lewis raised a valid point identifying another part of the problem: some of us have little or no choice.
Sure, you have the households with two working parents and a nanny, so the parents can work longer hours and provide a nicer house, nicer car and better toys for themselves and their children. But, at the same time, you have the regular folks that E. Lewis referred to that have become increasingly worried about the instability of their jobs and will indeed do whatever it takes to keep those jobs that they need in order to provide food, clothing, and shelter… and then, there are all the folks in between these two extremes.
Not everyone has a choice to be a part-time secretary at the school their children attend, or a classroom mom or whatever. Some people work long, hard hours because they ~~gasp~~ have to.
I often say that you don’t see the people who work a part-time job after their day job driving Lexuses and living in a $500K home on a lovely cul de sac. Most of those folks aren’t working 60+ hours a week because they want a shinier car or a bigger house. They’re doing it so that their children can eat chicken instead of pork and beans.
And, one last thing. While I don’t have the luxury of enjoying Tivo, I do subscribe to Cable TV and high-speed internet. (And no, I’m not taking your comments personally, just wanted to respond to the assumptions I think you made). Obviously, I could do without high-speed internet, but for my home-based consulting business, it wouldn’t be efficient. And, since we only have one computer in my house, I share with my teenager who often needs to use it for school work. Although it’s clearly still not a “necessity,” I wouldn’t call it a luxury. More like a nicety.
As for cable, that I consider a necessity. I don’t know about other folks, but in my house, we don’t just sit around watching rap videos and steamy movies. We watch programs on Court TV, the Animal Planet, CNN, History Channel, even PBS, and spanish channels to help practice the Spanish language. Watching cable programs makes us more well-rounded and increases our knowledge on a number of subjects you just don’t find being discussed on ABC or NBC or the WB.
By Renee
February 27, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
TIVO is a necessity, lol
By Gob
February 27, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
I think the work obession is also a generational thing. It has been my experiance that the bulk of the work-obsessed people are over 40. I think the reason younger workers tend to be less obsessed or commited to their jobs is because they saw their parents working crazy hours and neglecting the family. I saw this growing up, and it has had a major impact on how i view my job.
By RF
February 27, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
Jack- yep, you’re right. Once oil prices and energy prices went up, most families had little choice but to have two incomes. Prices rose sharply in the 70’s and 80’s, but incomes have never caught up. I remember my mom going full-time. She didn’t want to, but we all wanted to keep a roof over our heads with running water and electricity. And we didn’t have cable or computers then. It wasn’t about choice then, and I don’t think very many families have a choice now. Look at your latest natural gas bill and what gasoline is costing. With milk at $3-$4 a gallon, how many families can live without two full-time incomes?
By Gob
February 27, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
JBM - I wasn’t speaking of anyone in particular when i mentioned those things that i consider luxuries (I myself have all 3). I do understand that there each person is in a unique position and that the demands will vary.
And when I say that I think it is a choice to work less, i am not talking about the part-time secretary who has a husband making plenty of money. My comments were more focused at the people who live between the economic extremes. The basic principle i am getting at is that we have become so accustomed to certain aspects of our lives that they begin to control us, and we don’t even see it, and if we really wanted to, we could make a change.
No judgments at all in that because i am just as guilty as anyone else. Just something to think about really…
By Jack
February 27, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
People are working hard to try and have enough for retirement. SS ain’t gonna cut it.
By phentermine
February 27, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
phentermine http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/pilzen/buy-phentermine/ ; Thanks!
By levitra
February 27, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
levitra http://eteamz.active.com/pharmacyonline/files/levitra.html ; Thanks!
By phentermine
February 27, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
phentermine http://eteamz.active.com/pharmacyonline/files/phentermine.html ; Thanks!
By prozac
February 27, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
prozac http://eteamz.active.com/pharmacyonline/files/prozac.html ; Thanks!
By Archie
February 27, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
My answer to the topic question is no. I don’t think Americans are obsessed with work but they work because they need to. I don’t have Tivo or high-speed internet but my family wants the high-speed internet and frankly,we won’t be getting the high-speed internet. Satellite tv is a luxury but it would be hard to ween my folks off of it and I,too, have programs that like to watch. Giving up a few luxuries though does not affect the my thinking or the thinking of many Americans about work. People simply have to work and sometimes I wonder what is considered normal for some people versus obsession. Men’s Health lists fashion tips on the web and they feature watch’s that 8,000,5000, and on and on like that. My thinking is who are they trying to reach and do they understand that most people earn less than 20 dollars an hour. If someone were working to buy such a watch then you could they are obsessive. In other words, some people are completely out of touch with what Americans go through so they discuss things that are beyond the reach of the average person. This work thing is not a big deal to a lot of Americans as they just do what they got to do.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
hey kids! I am just back from one of those ‘working vacations’ Instead of a whole week off chilling out I interrupted the trip for 2.5 days for what was ultimately a 1 hour presentation and dinner on the West Coast with some senior executives from my company and our top clients. Yes, it was a political work move and very hard to say No to 3 senior executives who specifically asked for me to be there.
In the end I’m chalking this up to doing my role to support the gay movement to destroy marriage and the family. This approach is the secret weapon of the gay rights movement…to shame all the lazy, hetero slackers into working soooo many hours that they never spend time with their families which will ultimately implode into chaos.
This tactic is working really well in tandem with the Fabulous Life initiative. This is the program where gay people live fabulous lives and have pushed television shows that promote what a loser one is unless they live in practically a resort-style home and take over the top vacations as well as dressing stylishly all the time. We’ve confused the masses into believing they need this stuff and therefore need to work more hours to earn the $$ to acquire it…justifying the amount of time spent away from the ‘traditional family.’
HAHAHAHAHAHA…our evil plan to destroy America is working! (Sorry kids, but I’ve been away so long that I just had to go to the broach the homo threshold first…think anyone will buy into my homoconspiracy?)
By lozen
February 27, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
Back in the early 70’s I was studying psychology and mental health, and there was a lot of concern about the FACT that soon americans would be working 30 hours a week. The concern was about retraining american workers to use their extra time well. HA! What happened? In France they have a 35 hour workweek and people are mad because it isn’t 30! In Italy people go to work around 9-9:30. At 1:00 they have two hours off for lunch. They go back at 3:00 and work until 7:00. E. Lewis did a list of nine countries ahead of us in worker vacation time, productivity, and standard of living. But considering how violent americans tend to be, maybe it’s a good thing we have to work 40+ hours a week and don’t have much time off! “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop!” ;-)
By chuck
February 27, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Let the RECORD SHOW It wasn’t me this time.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Bankers, for heavens sake? There’s a reason that short workdays are considered “Bankers hoursâ€?. Hey now..I need to stick up for bankers…those hours ain’t what they used ta be! ‘Bankers hours’ died more than a decade ago and pretty much only applied to those working in branches. Now they have Saturday hours, evening hours, and definitely NO 2 hour lunches. I worked some very long hours when I was part of the on the ground transition teams for banks we acquired.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
TiVo has become a necessity to watch the educational shows that one doesn’t get to see due to working long hours.
By Archie
February 27, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
I meant to say 8 thousand-dollar-watches and 5 thousand-dollar-watches in an earlier post. Heck I think RF mentioned 15 dollars/hr in an earlier post so I wonder who’s obsessing with work. Maybe it’s people who will buy an expensive watch. I won’t even spend 100 dollars for a necktie,because that would definitely be a luxury. Americans work the hours they have to on average.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
“educational shows” Hahahaha!
Chuck. It wasn’t you but you were thinking it. LOL
By Brian Curtis
February 27, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
NetB has touched on a point of irony worth considering… how many people are working longer hours to afford the things they wouldn’t need if they didn’t work so much?
I’m talking about taking a second job to pay for childcare; working longer hours to afford a second car (for travel to and from the second job); working weekends so you can afford the Tivo, CD system, etc., to ‘catch’ all the stuff you miss because you’re at work.
Think about it, folks. If you work less, you also NEED less.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
No, Chuck it wasn’t you…but I’m just being sarcastic and don’t really a believe a single thing I typed.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
Jack are you laughing at me? Some of those shows that come on between midnight and 3am can be VERY educational…especially the pay per view ones!
By Jack
February 27, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
I can see buying your mate an $8000. ring but anyone who buys an $8000. watch needs to have their head examined.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Jack at least the watch fulfills a practical purpose. Then again so might the ring provided the recipient appropriately shows their ‘gratitude.’ If so…does the length of gratitude period increase with the price of the ring?
By Jack
February 27, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
Net. One might think it would but it doesn’t always work that way. LOL
By Archie
February 27, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
Jack I am looking at this Zenith Grand Port Royale Date watch that costs $7,200. When I read the comments about obsession I think about this Men’s Health fall fashion guide and how little some of the items relate to a regular working person. I can’t relate to buying an 8,000 ring for my spouse but I don’t criticize those that can, I am just not working for that.
By kimberly
February 27, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
Buy me a $2000 ring, a $3000 vacation, and invest the other $3000, please!
By Gina
February 27, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
There is one segment of the population in Georgia who wants to spend more leisure time at home, reduce their workload at the job, but not reduce their lifestyle. They are called college educated divorced women with children. They are currently fighting the change of the Georgia child support guidelines from obligor-only (percentage of non-custodial parent’s gross income - mainly fathers) to income shares where both parents income is used to set the child support amount.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
BC…you’ve got it! I know someone who was considering taking a part-time job to afford someone to clean her house because she really hated to do that job. She was serious until I pointed out that she would end up working approximately 13.5 hours in order to net the $80 needed to pay the maid to do a 3 hour job. I know someone else who is always tired from staying up late in order to watch the soap operas and talk shows recorded during the day AFTER watching the evening shows. My question…is it REALLY worth it? What is the real impact to one’s life if they miss a TV show? I skipped American Idol on vacation and what I got out of it was a 2 mile walk along the beachfront, lots of great people watching, and an ice cream cone to enjoy.
By Renee
February 27, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
too funny Net
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
Kimberly…If I was straight…oh never mind …but I DO like the way you think.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
2k isn’t enough. Gotta be at least 2 carats! And one in each ear.
By Van
February 27, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Gee, E. Lewis, your list looks just like the UN Human Development Index (HDI). It is a comparative measure of poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, childbirth, and other factors for countries worldwide.
Being in the top 10 in the world is a great achievement. Since only 3 countries scored in the highest percentile, I would say we are doing pretty well; we could do better if the lazy youth would stop complaining about how hard it is to work a 40-50 hour week. I’ve been working since 1967 and into days world, good hard honest work is its own reward. You can build a reputation as a hard worker and reap the rewards. Good health care, 6 week vacation, great pay, nice suburban home, no commute to the old fashion office(I work from home for a very large company), job security and a very productive life.
Those of you without a real job will never understand. Put in 30 years and you will be rewarded, bounce around 5 different jobs and show the world you can’t stay and finish the job. This is the typical mindset of tomorrows leaders, heaven help us.
By chuck
February 27, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Gob, You said:
I think the work obession is also a generational thing. It has been my experiance that the bulk of the work-obsessed people are over 40. I think the reason younger workers tend to be less obsessed or commited to their jobs is because they saw their parents working crazy hours and neglecting the family. I saw this growing up, and it has had a major impact on how i view my job.
I think it is more that their parents worked their butts off, gave their kids everything, and they don’t know that you have to work for what you get because they were never made to. My Father, who I lost to lung cancer a year ago today, worked 2 jobs my whole life, but he ALWAYS found time to spend with us as a family and each of the kids individually. It is called balance. It takes work and commitment, and most of us are too lazy and too selfish to do it.
I hope I learned my lesson when my son was about 5. He wanted to go out and play catch and I told him I was too tired. His response was “You’re always too tired”. Needless to say, I got up and went out to play catch. I ended up MAKING time to coach or help coach his teams all the way through high school last year. Now that he’s not playing baseball anymore, we play church softball together among other things. I sit down every evening when I get home and talk to my daughter. We go on “dates” about every other month or so so that she gets some “Dad Time”. No it isn’t always easy. You just have to get the priorities right.
As for both of us working, my wife stayed home with the kids until 2 years ago when my daughter went to the 7th grade. She is a teacher also, so we have the same schedule. We made a lot of sacrifices, clipped coupons, spent a lot of time looking for bargains, but we managed. It is a lot easier now that she works too, but we would have survived either way…we did for 15 years.
By Regina
February 27, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Chuck, You and your wife need to become consultants to teach the younger generation how to optimize time, cut costs and still live a full life. Kudos to you and your wife!
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
Van…unfortunately the opportunities afforded by your world just are not a reality today for most people in terms of a long career with a single organization. It is rare to find someone working for the same organization for long periods of time due to lay offs, acquisitions, outsourcing. I’ve had a very good reputation as a hard worker who knows what he’s talking about and that didn’t save me from 2 cases of job elimination and 1 outsourcing. I have 4 weeks of vacation a year, but that is the max in this company so no matter how long I work here I won’t get more than that unless the company raises the ceiling. Be thankful for what you have…most of us will never experience it, but not for lack of want.
By chuck
February 27, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
Thanks Regina, but we aren’t experts. We struggle like everybody else. It’s a blast, but it isn’t always easy.
By Just Being Me
February 27, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
NO vacation is worth missing American Idol for… lol.
NetB, my partner and I are definitely a working-class family. While we live comfortably, and enjoy many of the luxuries that make life convenient, we are far from wealthy. However, like your friend, at one time I seriously considered hiring, and even interviewed for, a housekeeper. It’s not that I hate cooking and cleaning and laundry and errands, I just have a hard time working full-time, parenting and wife-ing full-time, tending to the pets and keeping the house as sparkling clean as my partner likes it to be. In all honesty, I’d like to give a little more credit to those who would take what seems to be extreme measures to hire a housekeeper. After all that is done (for we working mothers), there is barely enough time to take your shoes off before getting in the bed.
Personally, I’d much rather work 12 hours extra per week to be able to get a break from all the household responsibilities…
By Elane
February 27, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Know what would be nice? If people would pay attention to their spouses and kids while they’re at home, and pay attention to their boss, co-workers and schedule while they’re at work. What a concept! Instead, people lug work home, glue themselves to the cell phone and Blackberry, and then wonder why their spouse cheats and the kids are out doing drugs. Their equally unbalanced cousins get to the office and fill half the day sending joke e-mails to others in the office, wandering around bothering others, gossiping at the water cooler, complaining about the boss, and otherwise wasting time. These are the ones who accuse their employers of not respecting the employees’ personal lives. Stephen Covey can write all the books he wants on “priorities,” but IMO, your priority is where you are right now. You’re at home? The family is your priority. When you get to work in the morning, your family and friends will manage without you as you hopefully do something to earn that paycheck. That’s the true meaning of work/life balance.
By Gob
February 27, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
I agree that there is a segment of youger workers who are lazy because they were given everything they ever wanted growing up. THere is, however, another sizable portion who grew up with parents working crazy hours to have more “things” who did not spend time with their families. I can only speak for myself on this, but I certainly have no aversion to working. The issue is what is more important in life, making lots of money or spending time with family and friends. I saw my parents divorce because they spent so much time working. THat is simply a life i choose not to live.
By kimberly
February 27, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
Jack… how sweet. But not all women place such value on an inanimate object. I like animate objects, hee hee I have a nice diamond ring, and it’s worth ZILCH because there’s no love attached. Can’t sell it for what it’s “worth” either. Would much rather spend the money on something my man and I could SHARE…. home, vacation, future, etc.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
JBM. What does your mate do to contribute? Nothing? You shouldn’t have to do all of the household chores.
By Gob
February 27, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
“Put in 30 years and you will be rewarded, bounce around 5 different jobs and show the world you can’t stay and finish the job. This is the typical mindset of tomorrows leaders, heaven help us.”
Van, did you actually write this in 1955?? The corporate world simply doesnt work that way anymore, and hasnt for some time. Companies lay off people everyday in this country that have 10 or 20 years of service. That isnt a reward. Job switching usually has nothing to do with an inability to finish a job. It most often is driven by a purely selfish motivation. if I work for Coke, and they pay me $30K a year, and Pepsi comes along and offers me $40K, then i am most likely moving. It works the same way for a company too. Dont think for a second that they wouldnt drop you if they could find a computer or even someone willing to take less to do the same job.
By Just Being Me
February 27, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Elane, I agree with you. Just out of curiosity (I promise, strictly curiosity), where are you as you type?
Van, I don’t even know where to begin to respond to your post. I disagree with you on so many levels that it would take me all day long to respond.
All I can say, as I often find myself saying on this blog, is that you can’t assume that what works for you will work for everyone else in the world (or country, for this matter). It is borderline judgmental to preach the whole “if you just do what I do, you’ll be so happy,” sermon.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
JBM…I think wealth is all relative…I don’t consider myself wealthy, but I know that I am in comparison to others. In any event I feel your pain with the “working full-time, parenting and wife-ing full-time, tending to the pets and keeping the house as sparkling clean as my partner likes it to be.” The only thing not on that list for me is parenting…I am the working “Mom” in our household. I would probably work the extra time myself if it included everything you’re talking about, but realistically it is $70-80 weekly just to have the house cleaned…no laundry, no errands, no meals.
By Just Being Me
February 27, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Jack, she actually does a lot more than a lot of “husbands” I know of. Since she’s so particular about things like the walls and floors, she generally tends to those tasks. She also helps with the dishes after dinner quite frequently. But, I definitely do the lion’s share of the work, and I may complain about it, but at the end of the day, I wouldn’t have it any other way. It’s my pleasure to take care of my family, and if I ever needed a break (like I did back when we were considering hiring a housekeeper), I would much rather have hired help than watch my partner do what I consider to be my job.
By chuck
February 27, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
I don’t blame you there gob. Life is way too short to put your kids through that. I still think that it is possible to balance the 2 though without either suffering. There were 5 kids in my family and a couple of them were sick a lot. We had tons of medical bills and my Dad worked to pay them off. He was a firefighter and had dropped out of school in the 10th grade to join the navy in WWII. For him, a high paying job was not going to happen, so he just worked 2 jobs instead. We were fortunate that he could function on very little sleep.
The toughest time for me was when I went back to school for grad degrees. My wife made that possible by taking care of just about everything at home. What time that I had, I was able to spend with my family because she did everything else while I worked and went to school. She is definitely a JEWEL. I was able to come home and play with the kids and relax until they went to bed and then I did my school work. Those were some late nights.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
I know. I do like seeing diamonds on my woman. (and nothing else, hee,hee)
By Elane
February 27, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
JBM,
I understand the meaning behind your question and will freely admit to goofing off when I shouldn’t be. I call it “taking a break.” The work does manage to get done. Never, however, will you hear me griping about the company I work for and accusing them of not caring about me. Not even if it gets me fired. This is just my personal choice and it is not a political statement. I also don’t disturb anyone else’s day while doing so. Just call me a reasonably productive realist. Gotta go, boss coming…
By The72John
February 27, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
Oooo, Netbanker. Now you’ve done it. Chuck is probably e-mailing all his crazy friends claiming that he has been vindicated; he’s now convinced that his claims about the worldwide conspiracy are true. Good game, Net!
What does it say about my work-life balance that I have over 100 hours of vacation time accrued that I haven’t used? Or what affect does the “can’t miss work ever” mentality have on things other than family - say…health care?
I know that a lot of people in my office come in to work even if they have sick time to spend because they feel guilty about not coming in. Well, that makes other people sick, who make other people sick…
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
Elane…cheers to you on an excellent point! I see too many people who don’t make a clear distinction between work and not work. They can’t seem to find the off button on their work issued cell phones, pagers, or crackberry.
I know that while I can participate in a conference call and check email at the same time I’m not giving either one my full attention or best effort. I’m being unfair to both as well as myself. It is often better to do one thing at a time and do it well than attempt to do several things half-as sed at the same time.
By Gob
February 27, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
Chuck, hopefully my wife will be as accomodating as yours was, as i am about to go back to school for a different degree and totally change careers.
By RF
February 27, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
It’s all about priorities. I’d love to be able to afford a housekeeper, but we make chores part of our family time. It’s helping my boys learn the value of time management and money. While I’d love to have more ‘play’ time with my boys, I’ve learned how to let things go and how to balance our priorities so the house doesn’t get too dirty or the kids feel neglected. You have to decide if you can live without tivo, etc. We live with standard cable, dial-up internet, and basic phone service because we can. Some folks have to have more expensive services to run businesses. I didn’t have a cell phone for a long time because it wasn’t in the budget. We survived. I’ve also found that children don’t care about expensive toys as much as they care about your time with them. We can have a lot of fun watching a movie and eating popcorn at home instead of going to the theater. I think we’re actually happier not having all the expensive extras. When you don’t have TVs in every room, you have to sit together and share space and time. It’s worth it!
By kimberly
February 27, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
Those of you without a real job will never understand. Put in 30 years and you will be rewarded, bounce around 5 different jobs and show the world you can’t stay and finish the job. This is the typical mindset of tomorrows leaders, heaven help us.
CLEARLY, Van has not worked in corporate America since the 1980’s when banking mergers began bouncing whole divisions of employees out of our jobs. Haha! Still, I’m sure he can find a way to blame it on a woman or a hippie for continuous downsizing and foreign outsourcing. Hahaha!
By Eirik
February 27, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
My dad worked his tail off climbing the corporate ladder. When they said move across country, he said “how soon”. He was always traveling here and there. He profited immensely from the “sacrifices” but I can’t really say they were for his kids…my dad liked the country club lifestyle and corporate cronyism…My brothers and I obviously benefitted from his wealth, but we were really just along for the ride, and I would have traded the swimming pool if it meant we could spend more than a year or two in any one place. I’m childless but my two brothers are fathers; they are anything but lazy, but they use my father’s example of how not to be a good father. They have both taken a more humble career path so they can be with their kids. None of us will accomplish what my father did financially, which doesn’t bother any of us in the least.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
What is a “real” job Van? Being a lifer at the post office? The telephone company? The government? Please define.
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
mara:
when i say bankers, i’m not referring to the goons that man the teller at your local wachovia branch. i mean the investment bankers, the commercial bankers, the people that actually crunch the numbers and consummate transactions. people who manage portfolios, either for a bank, a hedge fund, or a large institutional investor (think calpers or an insurance company like aig, prudential, etc). people who analyze risk, and underwrite loans, etc. that’s who i mean when i say bankers, and most of those people work insane hours, especially the junior people. an investment banking analyst on wall street can pretty much assume that he/she is going to work an average of 100 hours per week, every week. i don’t know many occupations with those kinds of hours. most corporate attorneys also work long hours since at the associate level they’re all expected to bill over 2,200 hours to clients per year. you have to work a bunch of hours to be able to bill an average of 44 hours to a client per week. and yes, the real consultants work lots of hours too, since billing by the hour is commonplace in those industries as well.
you’re not the norm to arrive to work at 545am. god bless you though, i couldn’t do it.
but ask anyone on the production floor to list 10 jobs with long hours and I doubt that you’d see many of those professions on the list
you’re probably right about what production people would say. i don’t find that surprising in the slightest. most people on the production line probably don’t really understand what bankers, attorneys and consultants actually do, how they do it, or how hard one has to work to do it.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this
Jack for $30MM you can buy that diamond bikini that will be in the SI swimsuit issue.
By The72John
February 27, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
Jack for $30MM you can buy that diamond bikini that will be in the SI swimsuit issue.
It’s already out. I have a subscription, but what do I need with the swimsuit issue? I just give it to my friends.
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
i think what eirik said is so true - he and his brothers aren’t going to achieve the financial success of their father, but that doesn’t bother any of them.
for most of us, it really is about priorities. would you rather be the type of person that earns $500k/year or more, or would you be content making far less but having the family lifestyle that so many of us covet.
we need to stop being so insecure about what other people have and constantly feeling the need to equal or one-up them, and get comfortable with ourselves, our path, our individual way of life. make yourself happy.
By chuck
February 27, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Van, normally I agree with you, but that loyalty was at one time RECIPROCAL. There is very little loyalty from the corporate side now. I think that it is their right to do what they will in the management of the company, but I think that right should extend to employees as well.
It’s just not right that an employee of 28 years can be laid off and lose the retirement benefits that they worked for for so long. What really should happen is that every employee should own his or her retirement program in total. In the first place, most companies contribute to the retirement plans of their employees, but they also control those funds to the benefit of the company. If those contributions were under the complete control of employees, they could determine for themselves how to invest them. They would also then be free to sell their services to the highest bidder without affecting their future benefits. Certainly, everybody should have a retirement plan beyond that provided by the company, but my contention is that it should be either totally privately held or that each person should be able to choose for themselves whether to take that money as additional salary or have it placed in an account. I also think that companies would treat employees better if it was easier for those employees to take their skills elsewhere.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
By Eirik
February 27, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
I have to comment to Van also. I know plenty of people that I worked with at a local utility, who were willing to do 30 years with the same company. They were all laid off this fall. One man would have been at 28 years this spring. Others were at 15, 18, and 21 years. Six months severence when you are 54 and have little to offer anyone else is not much reward.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
That thing would be like everything else I get at Victoria Secrets, stays on for about 5 minutes then is removed to reveal the real deal!
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
not much for foreplay, are you, jack? lol.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
PSSSST…RF?! You’re blowing the Fabulous Life Initiative cover by sounding all normal…just play along will you?!!!!! If I followed your lead I’d admit that I only buy used cars, clean my own house, cook 98% of our meals at home, take my left overs for lunch, do the laundry myself, wash my own car in my own driveway, use coupons in the grocery store religiously, buy store brands and then jack them up with some extra ingredients, try to use coupons when eating out (it sounds nicer when it’s from the Entertainment Book that was a school fund raiser), dropped all phone service except for cell phones since long distance is free and we can only talk on one phone at a time, only buy clothes from the clearance rack, groom my own dog, etc. I mean, honestly, how fabulous does that sound? The ruse will never work if we’re honest about our values.
Closer to the topic, it IS about what one values. As Grandma told me…’material things can be ruined or lost, but the memories one carries in their heart are the real treasures in life and no one can ever take that away from you…tend to those riches and you will always be wealthy’
By Jack
February 27, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
It’s much better to give than to receive.
By Zack
February 27, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
Americans are working too many hours because they’re trying to keep up with the Joneses instead of trying to keep up with their families. Many compete with others and have this futile attempt to find fulfillment through acquiring as many goods as possible.
My boss’s boss recently quit his job. He was making over six figures a year and quit to take a job where he’ll probably make 25% of what he was earning. When I finish my schooling, I hope I can, right off the bat, get into a job where I’ll exhaust the God-given abilities I have, not one where I do only slightly-meaningful work for good pay.
Brian Curtis—Your “your mama” jokes didn’t impress me.
By Eirik
February 27, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
Netbanker,
I’ve got you beat…I cut my own hair…really.
And I do a fabulous job…I cut my partners hair also which is actually harder
(no I’m not a hair dresser, we just got tired of paying 30 bucks for a haircut).
And used cars are definitely the way to go…actually there seems to be a curse with me and new cars. Every new car I’ve ever bought was hit within a year of purchase…never has happened once with the used ones.
And coupons are definitely the way to go…
By RF
February 27, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Net- One look at my closet would blow the Fabulous Life Initiative right out of the water! I doubt they’d let me in the door of the fund raising banquet!!LOL
You know me, I just can’t seem to be stereotypical. I try so hard!! (sobbing theatrically)
Jack- ever thought about how much money you spend for something she wears for such a short time. GEEZ that stuff’s expensive.
Eirik- happened to my dad. The original owner sold the company and the new owners (big corporate bunch) laid off everyone over 15 years. My dad ended up working an extra ten years to make any decent retirement. Luckily he got to freeze his original retirement and it was there when he turned 65, so he’s not as bad off as some. But it was hard to watch him start over at 50.
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
i agree. ;-)
By Lyrazel
February 27, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
I was raised by a woman who had to get a college education after her husband left to wed another woman. Mother worked as substitute teacher, then teacher with masters degree. In those hours at home she made 4 of us clothes, cooked dinner and ran all errands and continued her volunteer work (which she stressed was important because somebody needs a smile and helping hand today—dont wait). As we grew up we became accustomed to working, we all had house chores and then the running around chores. I worked earning a little money here mowing lawns—little money baby-sitting—and mother showed us how if we all pitched in our little-money we could get big money to have maybe an experience like vacation. The amount we saved she would equal. It became a wonderful vacation and every year we found ourselves with a vacation (a week) where we ate in restaurants (big thing) and even went to different towns like Washington DC, or NYC.
When I grew up 50 years later I discovered most parents did not require their kids to work. Most parents do not budget because they are already living beyond their means, some families lapse into poverty when they try being affluent on a single-worker paycheck. I guess there are fewer jobs for kids, I suppose free vacations is the norm now—and rare do I see kids who know budgeting instead of asking dad/mom/gran to buy it.
I could list the things I do not own and most of you would be appalled that how could I live such a way: no cable, no cell phone, no car. Its not easy but I do find I have more free time than most, I am fairly well-off now. Paid for my home, I planned my retirement, have a comfortable bit tucked away for emergencies.. I never had kids—so maybe—that is why I can be affluent. Its a decision married couples forget they can choose to have children…I chose to help children whose parent is stuck in a shelter…and you know I am being cruel…but I have watched these parents living on government assistance/Katrina FEMA aid buying television sets. Excuse me? Is this box a requirement of life? We had library books, coloring books, board and card games and building forts to play in. TV was not in my home until after 68 so its never been the necessity…and always the same poverty-stricken folk need cable.
You get out what you put in life. Who can guarantee that weeks of your vacation time is not spent in your hotel room watching movies because its raining?
Buy jewelry at a pawn shop. That 8,000 watch is 1200/ those 2 carat rings are 675. Just because some dip bought it at Jarrads means hes the fool—and you still only are wearing a 675 worth diamond even if he paid 4700 for it.
By The72John
February 27, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
When I finish my schooling, I hope I can, right off the bat, get into a job where I’ll exhaust the God-given abilities I have, not one where I do only slightly-meaningful work for good pay.
I thought they had cancelled the prison schooling programs. Huh. Well, good for you - improve yourself while incarcerated.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
Lozen. Your Mom was a saint. I always have my stuff appraised by someone other than the seller before I buy. You can get paste at a pawn shop.
By E. Lewis
February 27, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
Just remember that while our way may be a good way, it’s not the only way and quite often not even the best.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel. My last post was meant for you and not Lozen although Lozen’s Mom was probably a Saint too.
By Van
February 27, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
kimberly ,
I started working in 1966, usual name tag jobs, in 67 I enlisted in the USMC, did my 4 years and got out. Used my skills to get a job at AT&T working inside plant. In 83, I got promoted to Management. when 2000 came around, I was outsourced to IBM and am still working.
Your right, I have no real world working experience. I have 35 years of corporate work experience.
But, then again, the big corporation explot the working man, with lower than normal health benefits, 401k’s, pensions and 6 weeks vacation (5 weeks plus 5 float days). I have pulled my weight and have been rewarded.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
If only it was the Men’s swim suit issue, eh 72J?
By Zack
February 27, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
By the way, I’m going to scream the next time someone says womens’ “reproductive rights” were challenged in South Dakota. No, they weren’t. The rights of the unborn were remembered and respected. THAT’S what’s happening.
As for the work issue, I know of people who do nothing but work and work and work and think that their income makes them someone special. My supervisor, who I like, takes pride in his always putting too much on his plate at once and always tackling five tasks at once, as though giving 20% to five things at once as opposed to 100% to five individual tasks makes for a good move. He doesn’t deal with stress well and is highly disorganized. I don’t care how much money he makes; he needs to back off and try a different approach.
By The72John
February 27, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
I’d be all over that one, Net.
By Gob
February 27, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
Van, I think you are missing the point. No one is saying you haven’t worked a real job. What we are saying is that for every person in your situation (good vacation, 401K, job security, etc), there are probably 10 who thought they had those same things and ended up looking for work. Good for you that you never had to deal with that, to say your situation is normal is ludicrous, especially for younger workers.
By Zack
February 27, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
The72John (whatever your screen name is supposed to stand for)—No, I’m not in prison. If anything, I’m trying to help misfits like yourself stay away from it.
By Randy
February 27, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Just remember with money you can’t take it with you. It wouldn’t do some people any good if they could, like my dad use to say “it would just burn up” if they took it with them!
By E. Lewis
February 27, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Yes Van it was……..
By Jack
February 27, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
Being a lifer at a telco is like being a lifer in the military. No “real world” experience. At least you are not union anymore. I know plenty of folks that were “outsourced to IBM” then sumarily outsourced to the street. When you get outsourced to the street, those years at MaBell don’t count. You might get three months severence.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
would you rather be the type of person that earns $500k/year or more, or would you be content making far less but having the family lifestyle that so many of us covet These are not mutually exclusive.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
I have a couple of questions…Who ARE these Jones people and why are people always trying to keep up with them?
By Zack
February 27, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
The72John—I encourage you to contribute something to this blog. You don’t, 99% of the time. You just sound off and make us all scroll down that much longer to get to our comments.
By The72John
February 27, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
My supervisor, who I like, takes pride in his always putting too much on his plate at once
Now…is that LICENSE plate you’re referring to? Nice digression back into your only actual area on interest by the way, but I fail to see how abortion figures into this particular discussion.
We all ought to be a little concerned - the current generation as a whole is one of the first in years where a parent can’t count on a child probably earning MORE than they do.
Obviously, I’m not talking about exceptions - a gas station attendant whose son goes on to be a doctor is obviously not who I’m talking about. Rather, the average blue-collar worker is liable to see his or her child make less across a lifetime than he or she did.
By The72John
February 27, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
Lol, Zackie. I’m not a misfit - I fit in pretty good!…you’re the misogynistic, raving lunatic…not me.
And my screen name is a PLAY ON WORDS, Zack…some people call it a PUN. See, my name’s JOHN and I was born in 1972…see, I’m referring to myself like I was a classic CAR…do you get it now, or is subtle humor just beyond your meager “god-given abilities”?
By Zack
February 27, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
“The72John”—You need to make your sentences a little more coherent at times. You need to use “on” when you mean “on” and “of” when you mean “of.” Sometimes you’re a bit confusing.
Why are you on this blog so often? Did you divorce your husband and clean him out—before coming on here and talking about how women are so unfairly treated socially? My friend, listen to yourself.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
1972? Young a$$! (I think I have socks that old)
By Zack
February 27, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
72—I’m glad you told me it was a pun. Man, I’m glad you’re here to tell me these things.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Pssst. Hey Net, John is being reeled in.
By Gob
February 27, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Jack, If being born in 72 is young, I wont make you feel any worse by telling you what year I was born in then…
By Whiley
February 27, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
“By the way, I’m going to scream the next time someone says women’s’ “reproductive rightsâ€? were challenged in South Dakota. No, they weren’t. The rights of the unborn were remembered and respected. THAT’S what’s happening.”
You mean obsession with the fetus. That ain’t no baby. It’s blatant disregard for females. It’s punishment for having sex. Further punishment for being raped. It’s taking complete & utter control of female reproductive organs. Congrats, now a state can legally own & operate a female’s uterus. No matter what age. I hate that state & will not have anything to do with it.
I know some don’t give a rat’s arse about forcing pregnancies on females, so lets go at it another angle: You think there are too many unwanted born kids now? Just wait. Think the welfare system is out of control now? Just wait. Think too much of your hard earned money goes to other people’s food stamps & new jails now? Just wait. Think too much of your hard earned money is taken as tax to pay for local over run schools? Just wait Think single motherhood is all to common now? Just wait. Think women are going to sit by & not force all fathers to pay child support if they are forced to bear a child? JUST WAIT. There’s a lot of bad things that are going to happen because if the religious nuts.
Zack how many unwanted kids do you have? Why are you so obsessed with a fetus instead of the life of a grown woman & what a grown woman wants? Why are you so obsessed with a fetus instead of a child made pregnant at 13?
I forgot, people like Zack hate females. And don’t claim that you don’t that’s the biggest lie you fetus lovers love to shout.
I just don’t get this topic. People get highly p** at mothers who stay at home & “mooch” off their husbands by not bringing in a paycheck. Then at the same time freak out at working mothers. THEN you complain when divorced mothers need state assistance because they can’t get a decent job (from being out of the job market) or if they aren’t getting any child support. Kids with decent working parents are just fine. Kids with crappy parents are the ones in trouble.
And hey, throw in a forced pregnancy or two & soon everybody will be living off the state anyway. I’m moving to Canada.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Thats OK. I’m like fine wine!
By Renee
February 27, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
I hope being born in 72 does equate being young!!!
By The72John
February 27, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Zack, you correcting someone else’s grammar, word usage and sentence structure is like the Chinese government criticizing someone else’s position on civil rights! I’ve seen fifth graders who misuse fewer words and create better arguments than you!
You HAVE heard of a typo before, yes? I realize that your feeble attempts to impugn my intellect are the only really insults you can muster, but please do us all a favor and use your reasoning skills…typos are usually glaringly apparent, and trying to paint a typo as a misuse of language is just, well, silly.
Why are you on this blog so often? Did you divorce your husband and clean him out—before coming on here and talking about how women are so unfairly treated socially? My friend, listen to yourself.
What does this paragraph mean? Anyone? These sentences don’t really have anything to do with each other.
72—I’m glad you told me it was a pun. Man, I’m glad you’re here to tell me these things.
You did ask, Zackie. If I thought you were smart enough to figure it out for yourself, I wouldn’t have explained in such detail.
By The72John
February 27, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Actually Jack, I believe I’m the one doing the reeling. I’m trying to get Zack to burst into his “I can sue you for libel” spiel. It’s always fun.
I think you may need to go fish a little, Jack…you’re becoming obsessed with reeling.
By RF
February 27, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
Net- I have no idea who they are, but by golly they have lots of stuff!! They need to be like the rest of us—making it look good to ‘make do’ as my granny used to say.
Jack- sounds like it’s time to clean out the tube socks, dude. My dad still has some and wears them!
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
would you rather be the type of person that earns $500k/year or more, or would you be content making far less but having the family lifestyle that so many of us covet These are not mutually exclusive.
of course not, net. i know many people who earn over half a mill and have good home lives. my point was not the actual dollar amount one earns or is willing to earn, but simply that time is a scarce commodity. we all have to choose what we do with our time - i can either invest it in blablabla enterprises to generate as much material wealth as i possibly can, or i can invest the time in other ways. we all have to make those choices about what we want to do with each minute - earn money, enjoy a hobby, nurture the relationship with your spouse, go out with friends, spend time with kids, read a book, etc., etc.
By Randy
February 27, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
I here northern Canada is very nice this time of year Whiley. Have a good one.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
I’m waiting on trout season for sure.
By Whiley
February 27, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
“By the way, I’m going to scream the next time someone says women’s’ “reproductive rightsâ€? were challenged in South Dakota. No, they weren’t. The rights of the unborn were remembered and respected. THAT’S what’s happening.”
You mean obsession with the fetus. If they really cared about babies they would be doing more to prevent unwanted pregancies & taking care of the thousands of abused murdered & unwanted BORN babies they already have. Dang what does it take to get some sense through to the fetus lovers??? All the fetus lovers do is show complete disregard for females. It’s punishment for having sex. Further punishment for being raped. It’s taking complete & utter control of female reproductive organs. Congrats, now a state can legally own & operate a female’s uterus. No matter what age. I hate that state & will not have anything to do with it.
I know some don’t give a rat’s arse about forcing pregnancies on females, so lets go at it another angle: You think there are too many unwanted born kids now? Just wait. Think the welfare system is out of control now? Just wait. Think too much of your hard earned money goes to other people’s food stamps & new jails now? Just wait. Think too much of your hard earned money is taken as tax to pay for local over run schools? Just wait Think single motherhood is all to common now? Just wait. Think women are going to sit by & not force all fathers to pay child support if they are forced to bear a child? JUST WAIT. A lot of more bad things are going to happen because of the religious nuts.
Zack how many unwanted kids do you have? Why are you so obsessed with a fetus instead of the life of a grown woman & what a grown woman wants? Why are you so obsessed with a fetus instead of a child made pregnant at 13?
I forgot, people like Zack hate females. And don’t claim that you don’t that’s one of the biggest lies you fetus tell.
I just don’t get this topic. People get highly p** at mothers who stay at home & “mooch” off their husbands by not bringing in a paycheck. Then at the same time freak out at working mothers. THEN you complain when divorced mothers need state assistance because they can’t get a decent job (from being out of the job market) or if they aren’t getting any child support. Kids with decent working parents are just fine. Kids with crappy parents are the ones in trouble.
And hey, throw in a forced pregnancy or two & soon everybody will be living off the state. Crime will skyrocket in every inch of this country & we’ll all go bankrupt paying for it all. Nice going fetus lovers, I’m moving to Canada.
By kimberly
February 27, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Van, I was at IBM in 2000 too! (As a contractor with no benefits, of course.) What division were you in? I never said you didn’t work. You were the one who said “put in 30 years and be rewarded.” Sorry, but I’ve never made it past four years in one place, and not because I was a bad little girl, but because downsizing and merger-related layoffs have been a way of life for me since my first job out of college. But I realize you just enjoy criticizing others for being lazy and unfocused, even though most of us work to pay our bills just like you. Geez, get OVER yourself already, Mister everybody-but-me-is-a-lazy-worthless-idiot-who-deserves-to-die-in-poverty.
By lozen
February 27, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
womens’ “reproductive rights� womens’ “reproductive rights� womens’ “reproductive rights� womens’ “reproductive rights� Motherhood by choice not by force! No woman shall ever be forced to give birth to a child she does not want. It is not good for the mother or for the child. womens’ “reproductive rights� womens’ “reproductive rights� womens’ “reproductive rights�
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
hopefully no briefs from ‘72, jack. that would be really nasty. the socks are bad enough.
By Zack
February 27, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
72—As I said, please contribute something to this blog. All you normally do is take up space. As for your sentences, they’re not always incoherent; you just sounded a bit unclear earlier.
Whiley—If you can’t understand that a fetus is a human being, what can I say? You’re heavily in denial to say something like that, which is why you get so uncomfortable and mad when someone like me comes on here and speaks the truth. For you to call me a “woman hater” is ridiculous. I guess I’m a “driver hater” for opposing drive-by shootings. You and your type like to sit back and try to rationalize all day, but let me ask you a question that I’m not asking you to answer me or anyone else but yourself: Is it really getting you anywhere?
By RF
February 27, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
bla- wait ‘till you see how much little bla will cost you. Diapers and formula alone are outraegous!! Speaking of which, how’s missus bla these days?
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
so you mean john was born in 1972? no way! i never would have guessed.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Enjoy while they’re young. They get more expensive each year.
Bla. I go “commando” hahahahahahahaha!
By Whiley
February 27, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
UWomen’s right to her uterus ! Woman’s rights ! legalized birth control & abortion ! Women’s right to free sexuality equal to men ! Women’s right to live in a rape free country ! Women’s right to work & own her own property ! Women’s right to give birth or not ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol lozen ditto
I do love Canada, they are so much fun & very diverse. I wish it were warmer up there tho.
And I didn’t mean to post that long one twice.
By Whiley
February 27, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Zack lol you’re nothing but a fetus lover. You don’t give a rat’s arse about babies. Only fetus’s.
Only OTHER people’s fetus’s.
I know what a baby is, they cry, eat, S@#$, P@#$#@, cost a lot of money & need 24/7 care. Who’s going to pay for all those fetus’s you want forced into this world? Not me !
By Jack
February 27, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
I’m out there Jerry and I love it!
By kimberly
February 27, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
Bla, yes Jack is right. Don’t let the sticker shock on diapers & formula get to you, ‘cause that’s NOTHING compared to when they start playing sports!
By lozen
February 27, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
A fetus is not a baby. I have seen the result of a 6-week abortion; it was a blob of tissue with nothing recognizable as human. Your objection to abortion is based entirely on your religious beliefs, Zack. Your religious beliefs do not rule my life or the lives of millions of others on this planet. The women of this country should riot in South Dakota at the thought of the government controlling their lives and their reproductive rights! Reproductive rights!
By The72John
February 27, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Zackie, if people were being voted off the island, you’d be loooong gone. Remember that when you criticize the contributions of others.
Kimberly, you’re very correct. The concept of “employment for life” is a thing of the past. The idea of “reengineering” has pretty much put an end to it. There are no more Company Men - interesting that you both bring up IBM, since IBM’s blue-suited army of the past is frequently cited as being the quintessential “company men”.
Companies have sacrificed long-term return for expediency, and the worker has responded in kind. It’s estimated that a person of my generation will have at least four major career changes in a lifetime. While this trend has made it easier for companies to roll with the bottom-line punches, it’s also created its own set of problems.
Lack of investment in corporate culture, leading to a deterioration of that culture, for instance, or a loss of experienced mentors…these things can lead to real, hard-dollar costs that are not necessarily taken into consideration when labor is treated like any other resource.
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
RF - trust me, man, i’m already trying to budget out what that little booger is going to cost. i think i’m just going to quit escrowing and just pay taxes/HO insurance once a year, and keep the monthly cash flow to pay for little bla.
By lozen
February 27, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
How can we get in touch with those guys at the hospital to let them know Zack escaped from his padded cell and is using the computer again without authorization from his psychiatrist?
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Maybe we could get the Joneses to have a garage sale to buy some of that stuff cheap. I do hope they have good taste. Nothing worse that people with tons of money who have terrible taste.
RF…next End of Season Clearance Sale at Dillards you WILL meet me at StoneCrest and we’re going shopping! I have a closet full of designer label clothes that I’ve picked up at Dillards and have yet to pay more than $15 for a single item and usually average about $10-$12. To date my best buy was a Kenneth Cole short sleeve short I bought a month ago for $1.99. We’ll have you spiffed up in no time.
BLA…I didn’t think you meant that, but wouldn’t want impressionable young minds to get the wrong idea. Speaking of blablabla enterprises how goes the personnel expansion effort?
I’m ‘hearing’ a common theme here that “Less is more” when it comes to work time as compared to quality of life…and in Jack’s case Victoria’s Secret purchases.
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
kimberly & jack:
i don’t doubt you guys for a second. i’m sure you’re both right. we’d like at least one boy and one girl. i’m hoping we get that knocked out with our first two and can stop. i’ve been told we’ll have to go for three if we get two boys or two girls in the first two. but after three, mrs. bla wants to stop. hopefully no “accidents” after that point, either.
By kimberly
February 27, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
72John, Van hates me for commenting on other boards and questioning his Fuhrer-in-Chief… kind of like the venom Zack has for you. No matter what I say, he will try to twist it. Some men hate gays, some hate women, others just hate everybody. Sad.
By Lyrazel
February 27, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Jack, ALMOST all moms are saints, so is yours.
You can buy paste at a pawn shop but they will probably say its paste. Thats were you find out that the 8 mil bikini your husband just bought you is actually 29.95 WalMart issue, and thats where the 8 mil diamond bikini goes back to when the wife finds out the thing only comes in an A cup and hers are D…(but dear, it would have cost 9 million for your size cant you squeeze em in to fit?)
By Jack
February 27, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
I couldn’t talk the Mrs. into trying for a girl. :(
Boys are great but girls are precious.
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
it’s going great, net. i’m just kinda glad i’m not the one expanding. pregnancy doesn’t look like a whole lot of fun. it’s a little bit amazing that we’re all here.
By The72John
February 27, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
Bla…I’m sensing…twins…in your future…yes, yes…I see it clearly!
Sorry, couldn’t muster up the cheesy accent, but that’ll be $15.00.
By Just Being Me
February 27, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
~~having wonderful visions of an opportunity to vote bloggers off the island~~
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
why am i not surprised about your choices in fashion, jack! lol @ commando.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Kim. I’ll bet I know him. I’d ask you about the other boards but that would get me in trouble. :)
By Whiley
February 27, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
lol lozen I’ll take care of it.
I say sentence him to 10 years as a state childcare worker in a state foster facility for unwanted children.(24/7 he’ll be supervised of course)
See how he likes it. OH YES, & he has to pay for all the kids that go through there till they turn 18. Including any babies born in his care due to his forced birth policy.
By RF
February 27, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Net- my house is furnished in garage sale chic. The only new things I’ve bought in years are the TV’s and lampshades!
Definitely we’ll do the shopping—I need some help. I’m stuck in this Docker’s rut of late. I seem to buy just about everything with work in mind!! AAARGH!!
bla- you’ll budget yourself crazy, and then little bla will look up at you and say, “but daddy, pleeeeaaasssee”, and you’ll melt!! Just don’t put off the little one for work. I’ll take being stretched financially to have time with my babies any day!
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Lack of investment in corporate culture, leading to a deterioration of that culture, for instance, or a loss of experienced mentors…these things can lead to real, hard-dollar costs that are not necessarily taken into consideration when labor is treated like any other resource. This is a very good point, 72J. I was reading a study the other day about A list employees and B list employees. These terms were heavily used during the 90’s tech expansion and everyone was focused on getting A listers to join their organizations. What has come out in the wash , so to speak, is that companies really need to pay attention to the B list folks. A listers are out for themselves, want attention and perks, and will quickly move on to another organization, etc. It is the B list team that good managers pay attention to because they are the ones who hold the ‘tribal knowledge’ and create a stability in organizations. They are the least likely to rock the boat or need tons of attention, but are the team members who quietly wander off to other companies when completely ignored or over looked. You’ll never know they were unhappy…they just disappear. My team of peers is highly valued in our company because at an average of about 6 years each with the company we’re tribal elders that understand how we got here, what mistakes were made, how the products work, etc. The company will survive without any one of us, but things run far more smoothly with that knowledge in house.
The only place employment for life seems to have survived is government employees. It just drives me nuts to see things like Shirley Franklin ignore the recommendations of the Bain Consulting Group report to help make Atlanta government more efficient. They have too many employees, but the city won’t lay anyone off because they may not be able to find a job! Boo-freakin’ HOO!! No one else gets that deal…not even the elected officials who are too afraid of upsetting the workers by giving them a reality check instead of a guaranteed paycheck for doing a shi tty job.
By Jack
February 27, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
Gotta go. Duty calls. Everyone think TWINS. Twins, twins.
By RF
February 27, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
JBM- why vote ‘em off? If we’re dreamin’, let’s dream of holding their heads underwater or toasting them at the stake!!
By Regina
February 27, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this
Whiley, women want equal rights but just not when it comes to supporting their children. Currently, the women of Georgia, especially middle and upper income women, don’t want their income considered in the child support awards. They are saying their child support will go down. Of course, it will because it was an unfair amount to begin with and with the new guidelines the cost of the children at “both” homes will be considered. A father, most often the non-custodial parent, should not be responsible for all the costs at the custodial parent’s home, and his home also if their salaries are similar or if she makes more money.
Georgia currently has one of the highest child support guideline in the nation. The children have associated costs at the home of both parents. The money should follow the children and their needs.
By lozen
February 27, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
A very good book on this subject is “Your Money or Your Life.” I don’t watch much tv so I don’t have cable. I’d rather read and most of my books, dvds, etc. come from the public library. I go to very few movies because they cost too much. I think it’s crazy to buy a new car that depreciates so much as soon as you drive it off the lot. My car is a 1998 and it’s a great car. I laugh at the women’s magazines that try to sell me $500 blouses! I see the same blouses at the thrift store for $2.99. I buy used as much as possible. I’ve had $60 haircuts that were terrible and $10 haircuts that were really good so I get my hair cut at the cheap places. Jack, my mother wasn’t a saint, but she sure did squeeze every cent until it screamed!
By Regina
February 27, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
blablabla, lets hope you never get divorced in Georgia with the current child support guidelines. You would be out of a lot more money!
Let’s put it this way…if a divorce occurred, you would pay up to 23% of your “Gross” pay including any bonuses, overtime (that may not be guaranteed later), interest, inheritance, etc. You would be responsible for medical and dental insurance and half of all non-covered medical expenses. Oh, and I forgot daycare and later private school…
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Formula?! My friend Jeff told his wife that he didn’t see why they should buy formula. He was already paying for her to eat and she was producing the ‘formula’ for free in her breasts. If she hadn’t already wanted to breast feed I know she would have clocked him but good! As a woman who enjoys her sleep she did say that on the up side of breast feeding was that she didn’t need to get up during the night to warm bottles or have to go up/down the stairs to the kitchen. She could just pick up the baby from the basinette next to the bed and pop a boob in her mouth while she dozed back off.
By RF
February 27, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
Net- don’t get me started on the inefficiency in guvment!! I can’t stand the attitude you get from them because so many don’t give a rat’s butt if they do a good job or not. They may have guaranteed employment, but they’re not happy, which is more like a life-sentence if you ask me.
By Renee
February 27, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
Child Support is a totally different issue, but do I think my income should be considered in HIS support. H E double hockey sticks NO!
I make signicantly more than him, so under that logic, he will be paying nothing. It doesn’t matter what MY income is. He needs to pay HIS portion. What if I was a millionaire??? Then he should pay nothing???
And there are mothers that don’t work and so on and so forth. But the father needs to do his part with the support of the child. It’s about accountability and responsibility.
Another thing, just like my daughters father. He does not pay child support. He is garnished, big difference. I work every day, but I don’t have to be garnished to take care of my daughter.
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
i’m sure you’re right, RF. i’ll have to ask my parents how they were so diligent when i came begging for toys and other stuff. i’m an only child, but they never spoiled me; in fact i think they tried to go a little bit the other way so as to make sure i wasn’t spoiled.
insert only child joke here…. :-)
john, twins would freak me out, dude. SERIOUSLY FREAK ME OUT. i already won’t have a clue what to do with one of them, but to throw a second one in there kick me off the deep end. and if they were twin girls!?!? oh my gawd. no offense to the ladies here (i love ya all), but i’m just not far enough removed from my (how do i say this???) “more scandalous days” to not be seriously worried about young perverts who haven’t even been born wanting to de-flower my perfect little girl(s).
By Renee
February 27, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Last time I checked, damn near 100% of my income goes to my daughter. What she wouldn’t have right now if I only applied 23% of my income towards her. Having a child means sacrifice, and if takes all of your income, oh well. You should have thought about that before you did your deed. That goes for men and women alike. I wish I had the luxury of saying only 23% of my income goes to my daughter…That’s laughable.
By Whiley
February 27, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
“especially middle and upper income women, don’t want their income considered in the child support awards. “
Sounds like a sneaky way for deadbeat fathers go get out of paying their fair share.
So middle class single women have no problem supporting lets say 3 kids on their own? I didn’t realize it was that easy.
Even if a woman is rich on her own, doesn’t mean a father can just walk away without paying HIS FAIR SHARE. (except in Zack’s world)
By The72John
February 27, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
Regina, apparently you aren’t aware of blog rules. Off-topic personal axe-grinding commences on Wednesday, or sometimes tuesday afternoon, depending on how exhaustively we’ve discussed the topic.
Come back then - we can pencil you in between abortion rants, gay bashing, and various discussions of religion.
By blablabla
February 27, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
net - you’ve reminded me of something very important - moms often give the kid a boob to calm him/her down.
for us (straight) males, nothing really changes in that equation as we grow up - if anything has us too fired up, our wives/girlfriends should feel free to give us a boob. it still works.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
RF…is your class reading Lord of the Flies per chance?
Nothing wrong with garage sales…my advice is to go to neighborhoods with really nice garages and houses attached to them. We’ve ended up with lamps, sofas, most recently a really nice book case from some of my partner’s wealthy clients who were redecorating. You never know what you can find at a yard sale…my family stopped at a garage sale on one of our camping trips to see if they had any flatware because ours was mismatched and some of the handles were coming apart. For $20 Mother picked up a rather tarnished box of flatware that the lady said was a full set for 12. Once we started polishing we realized that we had a full set of Stieff heavy silver plate that included iced tea spoons and serving pieces. For $20 she bought about $4000 worth of silverware.
By The72John
February 27, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Nail-on-the-head, Net. My company operates with self-directed work teams. Very effective with a strong team, especially with a good mix of your “tribal elders” and the occasional infusion of new blood.
Remover a couple of tribal elders, and “keeerash”.
By Just Being Me
February 27, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
LOL @ John’s 4:22.
I totally agree with Renee (scared not too, she sounds a bit riled up!!!) LOL! No, seriously, I agree. Why on earth would the child support amount depend on the custodial parent’s income???
Obviously, anyone who thinks that is not a single parent.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
BLA…chill! While you are correct that it is amazing that humans are born at all we are amazingly flexible, resilient beings that aren’t ultimately as breakable as one would think. You’ll figure it out and do just fine!
RF…boy do I hate that look of ‘damn! here’s another one gonna make me try to work.’ I’ve been so jaded by GA government that while on my vacation I had to deal with 2 (YES 2) government agencies in Florida over tax stuff that I totally dreaded even heading out the front door. To my surprise I was back 3.5 hours later, having been successful at both offices, and at the second one they apologized to ME that their process took about 45 minutes due to a technical snafu. The most amazing this about the whole experience is that not once did I encounter a surly state employee, there were few lines, processes ran efficiently, and (better sit down for this folks) they actually THANKED ME at the end of both transactions. I knew I was going to wake up any minute in my own bed, but it was REAL. I felt like I was in some alternate universe.
By Netbanker
February 27, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
BLA…stick to breast instead of boob or you might end up with the form of one that means clueless idiot and what good is giving a freaked out straight man one of those? Did you see the nanny 911 recently about the kid who was about 4 who was refusing to give up (in her words) ‘The titty?’
Ah…the name Regina…makes me think of Seinfeld…
By Regina
February 27, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
Since I got off topic I will do what The72John said and talk about it tomorrow or Wednesday.
Income shares looks at the income of both parents which is the model used by 36 other states. Georgia’s mothers want it to stay as is, obligor-only.
By Regina
February 27, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
And some of the fathers have their children up to 50% of the time.
By Sam T.
February 28, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this
As long as human worth is equated with materialism, Americans will continue to work more and more. I would suggest that we should consider that we are “human beings”, not “human doings.” Our worth is given to us, we need not, nor can “earn it.” Work should be an extension of who we are. The material reward of that correct relationship will be enough. Satisfaction guaranteed!
By Lyrazel
February 28, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
Why would you bring children into the world and after a divorce abandon them? I see it done quite often and sometimes it sickens me that both parents become so absorbed to their desires and lifestyle they fail to even see the child they created for the rest of their lifetime, even the parent living with the child. Ah well.
Got a question for our gentlemen: Shaunti is an advocate of the mother-stay-to-home having park-days with her kids. While it seems the best course for the child, is abandoning responsibility as wage earner really what is best for marriage? Is the sudden loss of an income of a college-educated wife fair to husbands who must assume the entire responsibility of funding the home? Should the woman ignore the state of debt of the family? If so, how many years? Two? Four? Seven?
Very curious how the men feel…
By Brian Curtis
February 28, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this
I feel that what’s best for the marriage is not to have kids at all.
It’s true; couples with kids report higher rates of depression, more stress, and less marital satisfaction than those without kids.
I know someone’s about to object, “But what if everybody did that? Civilization would cease to exist!” Riiight. And just as soon as we start running out of people, let me know.
By Jack
February 28, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
Hi Lyrazel. If the couple can afford to live on the man’s income alone the wife should have the option of staying at home if that is what she wants. After the children start school, Mom can get a job or stay home & eat bon bons if she likes.
By RF
February 28, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
Renee- I know what you mean! I have a friend who is raising two on her own after catching her husband in bed with her best friend. He’s late every month sending his support, gripes about medical expenses, and refuses to help with any extracurricular activities. Yet he expects his visitations and expects the mom to pay plane fares to fly them across country. She finally had to get her lawyer involved to ‘remind’ him of the terms of the divorce just to get the deadbeat to fly here to see his own kids. Her income notwithstanding, she needs and deserves his help since he helped create them. If you can lay down and make one, you oughta stand up and take care of him/her!
Net- nope, we’re not reading Lord of the Flies. I teach struggling readers, so we’re covering more basic skills. The finer literature is a bit beyond us at this point. I love the slower kids, but I do miss the good lit. every now and then.
By Randy
February 28, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
As far as work goes, need to balance between making money and having a strong relationship with your wife and children. Get involved, go to their ballgames, church, different events. Create a strong bond.
By RF
February 28, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
lyrazel— if it’s a mutually agreed upon point, then she can stay home until Junior starts school. Some women want to, and it’s nice to have the option. It shouldn’t be forced, automatic, or blind to the family finances.
By Mara
February 28, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
Bla, Net - you are absolutely correct in that what bankers actually do is as arcane to me as the work of insurance people. I know it has value, but I really don’t know what y’all do. I, and those production floor workers I refered to, think of those tellers, loan officers, and “customer care” people when we think “banker”. Didn’t intend to offend.
And Zack - when they can remove the little parasitic life form from my unwilling womb and insert it into yours, then, and only then, will you have the right to berate any woman for having an abortion. If you anti-woman wackos would quit road-blocking the availability of birth control and the desemination of factual family planning information, it’d be a lot less likely that a woman gets pregnant before she’s ready to be a mother.
By Mara
February 28, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this
Hey Jack. You wrote - If the couple can afford to live on the man’s income alone the wife should have the option of staying at home if that is what she wants. After the children start school, Mom can get a job or stay home & eat bon bons if she likes.
Why do these things always devolve to the wife?
By kimberly
February 28, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
I’d love to be able stay at or near home every day, pick the kids up from school, drive to practices, cook a decent meal in the evenings, and keep the house in respectable shape. Don’t think the GUILT doesn’t plague us who can’t! Just another nail in the coffins of our lives.
By Whiley
February 28, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
Hey, if you have kids, whether you have a job or not somebody has to clean, cook, keep up with dishes, do laundry, grocery shop, get kids ready for school in the morning, make sure their lunch is packed, keep up with homework, lessons, sports, clubs, carpooling, clothing shopping, school supply shopping, dental & Dr. visits, organizing playtime with other children, bath time, make sure they brush their teeth, story time, sick days. What did I leave out? Sit around & eat bon bon’s? When would there be time for that? 2 am? lol Most of the women I know do all that without a husband, too many without child support at all. It’s sick how common that is. But ewwww you have to change the laws because 1.2% of fathers have 50% of physical custody & think they pay too much child support! There’s such an outcry for those few people that are getting over charged, but nothing about the millions of mom’s who do it all & pay for it all. It’s not fair. Unfortunately most all the child rearing & household duties are done by mom’s, whether they are working a job & married or not. Which is why most of us turn out to be angry nagging exhausted creatures that drink. lol
By Renee
February 28, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
Exactly RF. What ticks me off about it, is there should be no such thing as child support.
With single parents (normally being the mother with an absentee dad, but not ALL the time) one parent is usually FORCED to pay child support. Why should you have to take anybody to court to make them take care of the child. If you are in court proceedings determining how much support should be given to the child, 8 times out of 10 it’s because the nonpaying party refused to pay. This is not inclusive of the single custodial parent being vindictive or money hungry, but this does not make up the majority of single parents.
There is never too much support that can be given to a child. There is NO number that is a magic number that can be given for support of a child. I shouldn’t have had to take my daughters father to court for child support. He knows she eats and wear clothes, requires a roof over her head (and these are just the BASIC necessities. If a judge told me I ONLY had to pay 23% of my income to my daughter, I would be SUCH a fashion icon and my daughter would be BARELY eating.
By Chilao
February 28, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
Do I detect dripping sarcasm in Diane’s comments?
and LOL/LOL for Gob’s initial comment about “EMail?, heck, we be blogging”. too funny. But the point is I am here, should the crap hit the fan and the company needs me. LOL
Since I have for many years have had a work to live, not live to work mindset, being able to limit my working time has never been a problem for me. And every self-employed entreprenuer I have known worked 80-90 hour weeks and had bizarre working schedules.
But I once had an interview with a super-large food processing company, chicken one of them, where the IT Director told me if his employees were leaving at 5p, he figured they were shutting down at 2p and he was missing three hours productivity. Guess he had never mastered shutting work off on a switch, and got promoted instead. But what he was really telling me was he expected 60 hours work for 40 hours pay. Can we say “Forget that stuff” to keep it PG-13. LOL
and we all know the types, who live to work. dang.
By Jack
February 28, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
Mara. Cause it should be up to her. Should I tell her what to do?
By RF
February 28, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Renee- I have to laugh at the 23% too!! I’d love to have 23% for myself!! Oh, the spending spree I’d go on. As it is, I get whatever’s left after supplying their needs. I don’t mind it a bit, but it definitely makes me feel strongly about child support. I can’t imagine complaining about one red cent of it.
whiley- I’m there with ya!! I wish more men could live like I do. It’d give them a new appreciation for social expectations of mothers. Sometimes I’m too exhausted to have a drink!!LOL
By Jack
February 28, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
Can’t comment on divorce since I have no experience with it. But Anna Nicole should get all of the money her husband willed her. She made him happy and it was his money.
By Renee
February 28, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
Anna Nicole should get the money, Jack.
Let’s figure out 23%. That means if you gross $650 weekly, 23% is 149.50. Which means that in one year you will have paid…….$7,774 towards child support…Boy, it doesn’t get better than that.
By Randy
February 28, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
There is a tape recording of Anna Nicole trying to get her late husband to say that his wealth will be her’s when he dies. He is pressured and pressured by her to say that it will be her money. If that isn’t Gold-Digging, I don’t know what is. She took advantage of that old man and his family, she is trash.
By The72John
February 28, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
Looks like we’re going to digress early this week ;-)
I don’t really understand this child support issue…I’m inclined to believe it was sponsored by a group called “Concerned Second Wives of Men with Children from First Marriages”.
If I understand correctly, Regina is saying that my sister, a divorced single mom who has sole custody of my neice, should receive LESS child support from my deadbeat ex-brother-in-law because she put herself through six years of school to get her degrees in Speech Pathology and he is, after 20 years of fairly regular attendance, still something along the lines of a college junior with no real job…is that right?
Now, by his own choice he sees my neice two times a year, even though she lives less than two hours away from him. I’m trying to understand here - my sister, who has taken on the financial (I hesitate to say burden) responsibilities of raising their daughter, should receive LESS child support because she works harder than her deadbeat ex?
Am I understanding correctly?
By Jack
February 28, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
Randy. She made sure that man died with a smile on his face. He knew she was digging and didn’t care. His offspring should pay her attorney’s fees.
By The72John
February 28, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
Lol at “Taken advantage of”.
Yeah, I’m sure that the old man felt REALLY taken advantage by the big-boobed blonde woman taking care of him in his golden years.
snicker.
By kimberly
February 28, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
John makes a good point about the concerned second wives. (And third ones, too.) I see it all the time: women marry divorced men with children and then act all put upon that he “is forced” to send support money to “the plaintiff, that -itch.” Give me a break. These men who remarry and start a new family every six or seven years make me ill, and the women who think they’re “different” and special somehow for being the current wife are just idiots. Get a clue! If you can’t put the kids at the top of your priority list, there’s something WRONG with you! They children for cryin out loud; it’s not their fault!
By Renee
February 28, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
You are understanding correctly John! Makes sense huh!
LOL @ your 10:19 post!
By lozen
February 28, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
By Regina February 27, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this And some of the fathers have their children up to 50% of the time. Yeah, sure. What percentage of fathers have their children 50% of the time? 1 percent? 2 percent?
By Jack
February 28, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
:)
By Netbanker
February 28, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Morning! RF…I was asking about L of F because of the methods you mentioned on ‘the island.’ Took me back to that book for a minute. I’m currently reading my way through some John Jakes at the moment.
But back to the discussion…
Mara…no offense taken. I just wanted to point out that the tellers, customer ‘care’ (And BOY is Care a loaded word there isn’t it?), branch employees no longer work those ‘bankers hours’ of yester-year. I recall those days sitting behind the teller line and only having to work late on Fridays…boy was life more simple back then. Then again I was paid a LOT more to manage swimming pools due to the Heath Department license exam coverig chemical balances, filtration systems, and bacteria growth that you needed.
Lyrazel…the decision of who stays home is up to each couple. In 2 cases I know of the man stayed home because the wife would make more. My mother quit her nursing job after my older brother was born and she stayed home until I was in the 3rd grade. At that point she went back to work part-time in a doctor’s office. A few years later she went to Johns Hopkins to earn an advanced cardiac care certification and then went to work in the CICU at a local hospital. We were fortunate enough that financially she didn’t need to work. She chose to return to the work force because she is an intelligent woman who enjoyed her career before having children, we were old enough to survive being ‘latchkey kids’ a few hours Monday-Friday, and she desired the mental challenges nursing over housewife.
While my mother was one of the very few who worked in our neighborhood in the long run it was a great plan for our entire family. It taught my brother and I responsibility and time management (as in make sure the chores are done before Mom gets home), it provided the fulfillment my mother needed in her life, and we had an extra income that my parents invested for college educations and their retirement. I think that with today’s flex schedules and telecommuting the possibilities of remaining active in the workforce even on a reduced salary and schedule are far greater than they were even 10 years ago.
Last, but not least…Chilao…work to live is a good philosophy. It is one that I learned while at university in Europe and although I’ve definitely stretched it from time to time I carefully guard my ability to have a fulfilling personal life despite high work demands. I also urge my direct reports to do the same and chide them at times to “GO HOME!!� I am known to even escort them to the door and send them off to their families with a “Get Out! Go home! Spend some time with your kids and make sure to enjoy a glass of wine with your spouse tonight�
By Mara
February 28, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
No, Jack. You shouldn’t tell her what to do. What I’m talking about is why it’s always assumed that the wife should stay home with the kids if the family can survive on a single paycheck. What about the nurturing fathers who would kill to stay home with Junior, if only society didn’t sneer at him for not “supporting the family”. Admittedly, attitudes are slowly changing but the woman is still assumed to be the more caring parent. This even ties into the family court assumptions that children are better off with their mother than their father. It bugs me that men are not valued by society for being fathers.
By The72John
February 28, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Makes perfect sense to me, Renee. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that it’s mostly divorced and re-married legislators who are behind the bill…probably all staunch “conservative family-values” types.
Funny how they’re all about personal responsibility and “won’t somebody please think of the children!” as long as it doesn’t hit their own wallets. Or mistresses.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
I don’t feel a person should receive alimony from another person, whether they are male or female, if they didn’t do the work. I feel both mother and father should be financially responsible for the children without all the costs and burden on one parent. I feel both parents should have the opportunity to have as much time as they can with the children they brought into this world.
It doesn’t matter if a father supports his children. Most often the woman will take him to court anyway to get as much as possible. He could always be on time with the money and involved, etc. However, once that lawyer whispers in her ear, it is all over.
I don’t think Anna Nicole Smith should get a dime. She enjoyed the lifestyle while he was alive and presents. I feel she is the ultimate golddigger.
Did anyone see the following news story on Good Morning America last week. You can go to their site and read the information. For some reason, I couldn’t post it here because of errors.
How to Raise Kids: Stay Home or Go to Work? Debate Rages in the Mommy Wars
Is It Fair to Cater Solely to Employees With Kids? More and More Companies Give Great Benefits to Parents — but What About Employees Without Families?
By Regina
February 28, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
I don’t feel a person should receive alimony from another person, whether they are male or female, if they didn’t do the work. I feel both mother and father should be financially responsible for the children without all the costs and burden on one parent. I feel both parents should have the opportunity to have as much time as they can with the children they brought into this world.
It doesn’t matter if a father supports his children. Most often the woman will take him to court anyway to get as much as possible. He could always be on time with the money and involved, etc. However, once that lawyer whispers in her ear, it is all over.
I don’t think Anna Nicole Smith should get a dime. She enjoyed the lifestyle while he was alive and presents. I feel she is the ultimate golddigger.
Did anyone see the following news story on Good Morning America last week? You can go to their site and read the information. For some reason, I couldn’t post the URLs because of errors.
How to Raise Kids: Stay Home or Go to Work?
Is It Fair to Cater Solely to Employees With Kids?
By Regina
February 28, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Mara,
I agree wholeheartedly. Also, since more and more women want to concentrate on their careers, what is wrong with their husbands staying at home with the children? Many women just want to be a martyr. They want children but then complain about the work that the children require.
With two incomes, the financial burden isn’t on just one person. If a family can learn not to live on both incomes but save a lot, it is a great benefit.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
Iozen, I know many fathers who have their children 50% of the time. I also know many fathers who have their children 40% or more of the time while still paying expenses at the custodial parents home and their home also. What is the fairness in that?
By The72John
February 28, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
I don’t feel a person should receive alimony from another person, whether they are male or female, if they didn’t do the work.
What does this sentence mean? If they didn’t do the work? So…again…you’re saying that a non-custodial parent should be absolved of any responsibilty for paying for the upbringing of his or her child?
Methinks you have ulterior motives, my dear.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
The72John,
What I am saying is the child support should be based on the income of both parents which is the guideline used by 36 other states. For example, in an intact family, if the husband brings home 60% of the family income and the wife brings home 40% of the family income, that is the portion of support for the children. The child costs are totaled and then split according to the percentages.
By Jack
February 28, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
Mara. I would have loved to stay home with my children but I would have felt like a sponge (eventhough stay-at-home parents work very hard to maintain the household) Most men look at stay-at-home Dads as sponges. losers, ETC. That will not change anytime soon.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
For instance, Jeff Gordon risks his life for his income. I don’t feel his wife deserved alimony or support by him after their divorce. She is a grown woman capable of working. I agree that he should support his children with child support and that is it.
By The72John
February 28, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
That’s what pre-nups are for, Regina. Otherwise, marriage is a contract with certain inherent responsibilities.
You’re suggesting that if a woman marries a wealthy man in good faith, planning on spending the rest of her life with him, and then one day he comes home and says “honey, I’m leaving you for my secretary”, that woman should be thrown out with nada, is that it?
Anyone else here think that “Regina” is actually a 45-year-old entrepenuer named Reggie who just got taken to the cleaners?
By Renee
February 28, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
LOL…so let me get this straight…
A stay at home mom with the kids, complete with homeschooling. Hubby is having affair with secretary. Wife put her career, everything on hold, does not work or have any marketable skills to speak of, and she files for divorce and SHOULD NOT GET ALIMONY….
Too funny!!!! It doesn’t matter if it’s a stay at home mom or dad in that situation, alimony should be giving.
Regina, jokes are on Friday on this blog, in case you didn’t know!!! hahahaha
By RF
February 28, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Regina- I doubt there are many fathers out there with 50% living time who are paying full child support. Some maybe who didn’t have good lawyers!!LOL
As a dad, I can’t imagine arguing the point unless the other parent wanted to remarry. Like I said earlier, if you can lay down and make one, you need to stand up and take care of it. It shouldn’t have to come down to a court battle to do what a father OR mother should do. I would like to think either parent would want what’s best and take care of the child. Sadly, reality is different isn’t it?
By lozen
February 28, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Regina, please tell us: are you a second/third/fourth wife resenting the amount of money you have to see go out every month to the former wife and children?
By The72John
February 28, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Note also that Reggie’s arguments are all predicated on very negative stereotypes of women - golddigging, lazy rich wives, etc.
By RF
February 28, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Regina- now I see your point. If children aren’t involved, I can’t understand long term alimony. Gordon’s wife is just wanting to preserve her lifestyle when she knows she couldn’t keep it up on her own. That’s gold digging!
Is the new GA standard going to be income based? I doubt it’ll be that simple—nothing legal ever is.
By Jack
February 28, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
Regina. Many dead-beats quit their jobs to avoid paying support. 36% of zero is zero.
I’ll go out on a limb here. If both spouses make the same money and either can choose to stay at home, it should be Mom who stays home. Children need their mothers more than fathers.
By Chilao
February 28, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Isn’t there quite abit of difference, conceptually, between child support and alimony?(spousal support)
NET - it is funny, you ask an American ‘What do you do?’ you get the work thing, you ask a European what they do, you get answers like ‘bicycle, volunteer at the museum, go hang-gliding, etc” LOL and then you have to clarify, “I mean, what do you do *For Work?”.
By lozen
February 28, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Stereotypes galore! Regina negatively stereotypes women. Jack makes the sweeping statement that kids need their mom more than their dad. True in some cases, not true in other cases. Every child custody/support case should be based on individual circumstances.
By Chilao
February 28, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Gordon’s ex, Brooke, was a model before they married, and she from a line of wealthy insurance brokers family. No reason she should have gotten alimony and the fact she went for it says “GoldDigger”. But I think he did a lump-sum cut and dry deal to be rid of her.
By Jack
February 28, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
Not all cases Lozen. There are exceptions in all situations. (I am using a big broom for this one.)
By Jack
February 28, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
Doesn’t matter her background, coal miners daughter or newspaper mogul’s daughter, a contract is a contract. He can afford it.
By Renee
February 28, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
I see why Jack would say that. It doesn’t ALWAYS apply, but typically mothers are the nurterers (sp?).
And child support and alimony are totally different. But child support should not even be a discussion.
When you have a child, they come first, you come last, ALL the time.
By kimberly
February 28, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
My friend’s ex-husband moved to Costa Rica to avoid paying child support to his three children from two marriages. Nice guy. When she got a raise from $10 to $12 an hour, her two kids lost their state medical benefits. If you are thinking of marrying a man who already left one family, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? Don’t DO it. That solves Regina’s problem of your husband paying support to previous families, and your future problem of being left in the same position. DON’T DO IT! Just a tip.
By lozen
February 28, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Women who grow up wealthy know how important money is and expect money from a divorce. Jackie Kennedy did not marry Onassis for nothing! A settlement was done before they married about how many millions she would get if it didn’t work out. How many women wish they hadn’t tossed their future to the wind for love? Poor women may do it, but rich ones don’t because they have better financial advisors!
By The72John
February 28, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
I’m with Jack - marriage is a contract with responsibilities. When said contract is disolved there are certain legal consequences.
By ashley
February 28, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Another tip: Don’t marry an ugly man! Think about what your children will look like. Don’t marry an unhealthy man. Think about your children’s health. Don’t marry a poor man. Think about your children’s education, home, future.
By ashley
February 28, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Forgot one, don’t marry a stupid man.
By kimberly
February 28, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
The good ones are either married or batting for the other team. (This blog has totally affirmed that for me!) What good is marriage without love? What chance does love have it you can’t pay the bills? I’m going to make myself a nice hot cup of hemlock tea now. Over it.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Nope, I am definitely a Regina and not a second, third, or whatever wife. If a man has an affair on his wife, he should pay a monetary settlement, but not a monthly check for years. If a woman had an affair on her husband she should have to pay but not monthly either. If the woman or man is bored and just wants a divorce, they shouldn’t get any kind of monetary settlement.
Renee is correct, children should be supported no matter what happens to the marriage.
With more women in the workforce and more professional women, the tide is turning when it comes to affairs.
By The72John
February 28, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
From a legal standpoint, when one enters into a marriage the assumption is that it is a life-long contract. Whether that is a reasonable assumption today is beside the point. That’s why alimony payments continue - the contract being “violated”, if you will, was permanent, therefore the penalty from breaking that contract is equally permanent, at least until such time as the non-breaking party enters into another such contract.
By RF
February 28, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
don’t give up too quickly kimberly. Love hits you like a bolt of lightning, and everything else works itself out. My mom always says it doesn’t matter if it’s dinner at the Ritz or hotdogs by the TV, if you’re with the one you love, it’s perfect.
By Nikita
February 28, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
A few random comments:
*My opinion is quite low of those who have children they can’t support. Which, let’s face it, is many of them. and that goes double for those who decide they no longer want to support their kids and get legislators and “public interest groups” to do their dirty work. Keep in mind, everyone, that throwing additional economic responsibility onto a party who is already less likely to be educated and saddled with the substantial costs of raising children is going to result in more strain on the society as well as on the individual.
I am really proud of Shaunti for not invoking the fictitious good ol’ days and/or Donna Reed.
Both columnists avoided discussing the factors that cause people to work as much as they do, suggesting that this is a lifestyle issue. Well, it’s not in most cases. Changes in labor laws, industry norms (I once had a job where I worked about 50 hours a week and which gave me two weeks of vacation, which expired at the end of the calendar year and were to be taken with me being on-call to my clients), poverty (the double or triple job phenomenon), and finally gender equality all have some impact and would need to be addressed to change the situation.
By ashley
February 28, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
How true Regina. With so many women in the workplace the tide is turning. More women initiate divorce now than ever before because they don’t “need” a man to take care of them. Less women put up with abuse because they don’t need a man to support them. However, there are still many, many women who cannot support themselves and their children, many women who stay married to abusers because they have to, many women who have no skills and can’t support the family if something happens to the man in the family. Remember, “the poor will always be with us.” We should never fall into the trap of believing everyone in this country is financially middle class or above!
By Jack
February 28, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
Lawdy. Not a very flatering picture of Andrew Young’s wife on the main page. She looks thrilled to be there.
By Netbanker
February 28, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
If children aren’t involved, I can’t understand long term alimony.
I’m going to have to disagree here a bit. I think alimony should depend on the length of marriage and the roles each played. My friend Karen had the husband left after 25 years for the secretary scenario. He tried to argue that she didn’t work and deserve it, but how many men would have been able to reach the level they have/did in their career without the wife’s backup? Could he really have managed the corporate dinners, the dry cleaning, the house keeping, etc all by himself? When a couple makes a conscious decision that her job was to support him in his job so he can be successful, then the wife deserves fair compensation which may extend to long term alimony. Had the couple decided to each work on their own careers then that is different story. Please note that his/her/wife/husband…it’s all interchangeable for me in regard to roles.
By Renee
February 28, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
good comment john 12:17
By Jack
February 28, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Hey Net. Someone should slip him some antifreeze. Blends well with iced-tea.
By Brian Curtis
February 28, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Dang, I guess I’m not a “good one”….
Are we fully committed to the alimony & child support topic now, or are posts on work/life balance still valid?
By The72John
February 28, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
Brian, you should know by now, it’s all good! Feel free to stop chasing the rabbit at any time.
By Jack
February 28, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
Go ask Alice….when she’s 10 feet tall.
By Mara
February 28, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Nikita My opinion is quite low of those who have children they can’t support. Which, let’s face it, is many of them. This is a standard sound bite from the anti-tax, anti-choice, anti-woman Republicans. They neither want women to abort babies that they can’t support nor have babies they can’t support. I always have to laugh when I hear it. “Damn welfare queens, having baby after baby just to get welfare. Don’t have ‘em if you can’t support ‘em” It doesn’t seem to register to them that they are working at cross purposes to that when they push legislation against easily accessable contraception, comprehensive sex ed, and even abortion, when all else fails.
By Ernie Monet
February 28, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
I’m reading this column during working hours at a very large, bankrupt, Atlanta-based airline that is getting ready to lay off another 9,000 or so employees and is outsourcing everything else as fast as it can. I’ll probably leave early too. Ask me how obsessed I am with work.
By Netbanker
February 28, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Hmmm…I think Lust hits like a lightening bolt. Truly loving someone is a much longer process…along the lines of a preparing a good custard or souffle…it takes time and attention and care to achieve it’s full potential.
RF…I do like the occassional very nice dinner, but I’ll take the hotdogs by the TV or even a PB&J heck I could care less about the food so long as I get a break from having to prepare it!
Regina…I still don’t agree on the single check and you’re done divorce as a blanket rule. If one person has been out of the work force for many years they just won’t have the skills to obtain a job such that they can continue to live even reasonably close to the way they have while married. The other person should have to provide support for a period of time that will allow the other person to gain skills or education that will enable them to support themselves in a reasonable fashion.
By kimberly
February 28, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
Ernie, don’t sweat it! (Ask me which airline I booked for Spring Break?) Haha! Sorry dude. Good luck in your quest for meaningful employment. Times are tough.
Brian Curtis: are you on myspace yet?
By Regina
February 28, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, if a man or woman doesn’t have children having a spouse doesn’t necessarily assist their career. There are many successful men and women without spouses, so having one doesn’t necessarily equate to assisting in one’s success.
By Brian Curtis
February 28, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
I can’t speak from experience on issues of divorce, child support, alimony, being single (although with many married and divorced friends), but I think a fairer system than the one we’ve got is needed.
The custodial parent legitimately DOES have many more expenses, both in money and time, than the non-custodial… however, the non-custodial is also excluded from participation in the “family� situation and too often is reduced to a source of funding, with no other function or involvement. In some cases, there’s a “wrongdoer� where that status is deserved; but in other cases, it’s not.
As to work vs. family, I think most people here have expressed a healthy attitude: do a good job, but don’t get caught up in work to the exclusion of IMPORTANT things in your life.
I like my job, and I like to think I’m good at it. But I never mistake my job for my real life; my job is simply the stuff I do to PAY for my real life. And if my boss wants extra effort or overtime from me, I’m willing to consider it—on my terms, as I see fit based on what I’ll have to give up in exchange. Usually, I refuse.
By The72John
February 28, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, you’ve got a myspace profile?
By RF
February 28, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
Net- uh-hmmmm on dinner. It’s nice not to have to fix it OR clean up after!!
I tend to believe you know pretty early on whether the souffle is going to rise or fall. I can’t seem to get one into the oven of late that doesn’t crash AND burn! LOLOL
Ernie- got a brother there with you dude! He’s hanging on and doing what he has to until the end. Do you think there’s a chance they’ll come out of the bankruptcy?
By Regina
February 28, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
There was a study that poor people engage in intimate relations more than others. That is probably why they have more children. It is probably due to the fact they don’t have other means of recreation.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
Divorced people don’t have a good work/life balance because of the fact they are divorced. I think the people who have the best work/life balance are perhaps professionals without children (Double Income, No Kids).
By The72John
February 28, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
There was a study that poor people engage in intimate relations more than others. That is probably why they have more children. It is probably due to the fact they don’t have other means of recreation.
I really, really don’t know where to start with this one…
By kimberly
February 28, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
The kid helped me set it up. There are lots of disturbed people out there in the cyber dimensions. Even moreso than HERE! {;->
By Regina
February 28, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, I know they aren’t married, but do you think Stedman has helped Oprah’s career? No, and if they were married, he shouldn’t get a dime.
Ashley, In the case of poor women, often the men are poor also. When you take and take from the men to give to the women, you create a segment of men who will go to a cash only society. The key is to assist both the women and the men with job opportunities, educational opportunities, and child care until they can help themselves. There shouldn’t be a lifetime reliance on society.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis,
Yes, the system does need a fix.
The new child support guideline will combine the incomes of both parents and require each to pay their proportional share of the cost of raising the child. It also considers the time with the parents.
By RF
February 28, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
Regina- double income/no kids may make for financial stability, but those folks are missing out. I wouldn’t take all the money in the world for mine, financial struggles and all. They’re my savings and my investment in the future. The work/life balance is possible because of them. I was lots more financially balanced before kids, but LIFE is so much more worth living, and the work worth doing, because of my kids.
By kimberly
February 28, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Ahhh… the topic has shifted once again to the horrific drain that poor people place on the hard-working members of society. Um-hmm. Those DOGGONE poor people! Yes, let’s all revert to immediate outrage at poor people — the root of all evil.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis,
There is a news story. I don’t think single employees should work extra than those with children just because the company doesn’t feel they have a life.
Is it fair to cater solely to employees with kids?
More and More Companies Give Great Benefits to Parents — but What About Employees Without Families?
Go to the ABC website under GMA
By The72John
February 28, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
The new system will allow deadbeat parents to avoid paying their fair share of child support. Period.
By The72John
February 28, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
Well c’mon Kim - cough up the Profile :-)
By kimberly
February 28, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
No way! There are pictures of me & stuff. Haha! (It would be too much for Jack…) {;->
By The72John
February 28, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours…
By RF
February 28, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
What specific ‘greater benefits’ are we talking about? I don’t know of a single company that gives more days off to parents or better insurance. In fact, my insurance costs quaddrupled when I got my boys. I don’t get a single extra minute off or any special compensation for having them.
By Renee
February 28, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
Does a married partner help the success of the other persons career. ABSOLUTELY. Does Stedman help Oprahs career. I’m not in the household but I could bet money that if you asked Oprah she would say yes.
My partner didn’t work for years. Did she support me. Yes. She supported me in EVERY facet of life except bringing home the bacon. And in the state I reside, YES she could ask for Alimony.
Regina your 1:34 post….well like John said….don’t know where to start…you can’t have been serious, more jokes I’m sure….
Marriage is a legally binding contract and the only reason the other spouse should not get alimony if there is a divorce, is if that spouse caused the dissolution. My personal opinion is I don’t believe in prenups. If you are in it, you are in it for life, for love until DEATH do you part.
By RF
February 28, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
JOHN- not in public, PLEASE!! That soooo doesn’t work after you graduate from kindergarten dude!!LOL
By kimberly
February 28, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Okay I’ll give some clues: I’m local to this newspaper, it’s not my name, it’s an obvious alias. If you click me, you’ll hear Harvey Danger. What about you?
By Regina
February 28, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Child support laws and child support enforcement are two different things. There will always be some who will not want to pay, but we shouldn’t punish the good parents who obey the law and support their children. We also shouldn’t have unfair child support and child custody laws on the books because of the people who don’t obey the law.
We have laws on the books to protect people and there will always be someone who violates them. We have to make the laws as fair as possible. I agree with Renee in why do we need to take someone to court to force them to support their children. Most do, but resent having a court tell them a certain amount. Most good parents would supply even more if their hands weren’t tied and the threat of jail hanging over them.
One law that needs to be put on the books is mandatory DNA testing for all babies. Momma’s baby…papa’s maybe…
By RF
February 28, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
Regina- maybe because those of us with kids are more conscious of our need for jobs and stability we make better employees in the long run. Scholarships and paternity leave are nothing new. Companies have been offering those for a long time. Maybe they know those of us with kids value our jobs more??
I’ll agree they need to balance the scales some. I’d love to find a company ( and GMA doesn’t metion any specifics) that would offer me extra stuff. As it is, I bring home less to have family benefits!
By Renee
February 28, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
You know you get the “secret” single parent benefits RF!!!! LOL
By Eirik
February 28, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Regina,
There is some truth to the fact that those least able to care for children often have the most…this is seen in third world countries. My economics professor in college explained it in economic terms…the disadvantaged (poor..) have little opportunity cost for each child…i.e., they have nothing so they really have nothing to lose by having another kid…seems kind of backwards.
The affluent have more opportunity cost for each child…i.e., they have more “opportunity” to give up and therefore tend to be more thoughtful about their reproductive choices.
By The72John
February 28, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Hmm…well, every post I make contains the answer.
By Jack
February 28, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Alas. I want what I cannot have. The profile please. I’ll be a good boy, promise! Sugar on top.
By RF
February 28, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
Renee- those benefits are so secret, even I don’t see ‘em!!—LOL
The best benefit is that I don’t have to share any of the hugs and kisses and couch time!! :-)
By Netbanker
February 28, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
Regina…I agree that having a spouse does not necessarily equate to their having provided support to one’s career or success. Yet when it does (regardless of children) then I think that spouse deserves some type of compensation for a reasonable length of time. I think this scenario is less common today than it was for my friend Karen and especially so for those under 40.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Renee, I too believe marriage is for life. However, I do believe in prenups. If a person is entering into a marriage with someone who has children or has been married previously, a prenup is a definite.
I know a guy who is a widower. His wife, who was the love of his life, died of cancer. He definitely should sign a prenup if he marries again. Why should he risk having another woman take everything? See, as women, we don’t need to worry because “most” courts will not give a man alimony, homes, etc. or anything we worked hard to achieve. We definitely have that advantage.
By RF
February 28, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
oh lordy, she’s got Jack begging. Those redheads are his weakness, no doubt!
By kimberly
February 28, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Cool! I’ll stop by and say “Hey!”
By lozen
February 28, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Mara your 1:13 covered the topic very well. And this bears repeating over and over again: …millions fear that a law that forbids abortion would condemn many American women to lives that lack dignity, depriving them of personal liberty and leading those with least resources to undergo illegal abortions with the attendant risks of death and suffering.” Because abortion remains an issue of conscience and religious conviction, the decision ought to be left to the pregnant woman herself. The state has no business or standing to wrest control of such a personal matter from the woman. Despite the optimism of abortion opponents, a reversal of Roe v. Wade will not eliminate abortions. It will only stop safe abortions. While middle-class women and their daughters will travel wherever necessary to find a safe abortion, poor women will have no choice but the back alleys. Before states voted to legalize abortion in the late 1960s, estimates are that between 200,000 and 1.2 million illegal abortions occurred each year. Women appeared in emergency rooms with resulting infections and complications. In 1965, for example, at least 193 women died from illegal abortions, representing nearly 17 percent of all pregnancy-related deaths that year. AJC Editorial 2/28/06
By The72John
February 28, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
One law that needs to be put on the books is mandatory DNA testing for all babies. Momma’s baby…papa’s maybe…
Apparently privacy isn’t a concern of yours. Thanks, but the minute we start DNA-testing every baby born is the minute the theme to Gattica starts playing in the background.
By Jack
February 28, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
Where? When? (just kidding)
By blablabla
February 28, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
whoever said andrew young’s wife looked hideous on the main page was spot on. what an awful picture.
what is campbell’s defense? cart as many former mayors in front of the jury to tell them they didn’t raise no crook? lol.
put the bum in jail where he belongs!!!
is anybody watching “flavor of love” with flavor flav? such a fun show!!!
By Jack
February 28, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
He also testified in behalf of Al Amin. Maybe Bill will have better luck. The Mrs. didn’t look thrilled at all!
By Regina
February 28, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
A woman should make her own individual choice. However, she must be aware that she is not the only person affected by that choice. If anyone has every heard the following song by Nick Cannon, star of Drumline and also was on Nickelodeon, it will make one think about the consequences of their actions.
“Can I Live” Nick Cannon (featuring Anthony Hamilton)
[Talking] Ma I know the situation is personal But it something that has to be told As I was making this beat You was all I could think about you heard my voice
[Verse 1] Yeah Just think Just Think What if you could Just Just blink your self away.. Just Just wait just pause for a second Let me plead my case It’s the late 70’s Huh You Seventeen huh And having me that will ruin everything huh It’s alot of angels waiting on their wings You see me in your sleep so you cant kill your dreams 300 Dollars thats the price of living what? Mommy I dont like this clinic Hopefully you’ll make the right decision And dont go through with the knife incision But it’s hard to make the right move When you in high school How you have to work all day and take night school Hopping off da bus when the rain is pouring What you want morning sickness or the sickness of mourning
[Chorus] I’ll Always Be a part of you Trust Your Soul Know it’s always true If I Could Talk I’d Say To You CAN I LIVE CAN I LIVE I’ll Always Be a part of you Trust Your Soul Know it’s always true If I Could Talk I’d Say To You CAN I LIVE CAN I LIVE
[Verse 2] I am a child of the king Ain’t no need to go fear me And I see the flowing tears so know that you hear me When I move in your womb that’s me being scary Cause who knows what my future holds Yo the truth be told you ain’t told a soul Yo you ain’t even showing I’m just 2 months old Through your clothes try to hide me deny me Went up 3 sizes Your pride got you lying saying ain’t nothing but a migraine It ain’t surprising you not trying to be in Wic food lines Your friends will look at you funny but look at you mommy That’s a life inside you look at your tummy What is becoming ma I am Oprah bound You can tell he’s a star from the Ultrasound Our Sprits Connected Doors Open Now Nothing But Love And Respect Thanks For Holding Me Down She Let Me Live…
[Chorus] I’ll Always Be a part of you Trust Your Soul Know it’s always true If I Could Talk I’d Say To You CAN I LIVE CAN I LIVE I’ll Always Be apart of you Trust Your Soul Know it’s always true If I Could Talk I’d Say To You CAN I LIVE CAN I LIVE [Repeat 2]
[Nick Talking]
It’s uplifting foreal yall I ain’t passing no judgement Ain’t making no decisions I am just telling ya’ll my story I love life I love my mother for giving me life We all need to appreciate life A strong woman that had to make a sacrifice Thanks for listening Thanks for listening Mama thanks for listening
By Jack
February 28, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
I agree John.
By Netbanker
February 28, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Kimberly…you’ve reduced Jack to begging….it’s sooo not a pretty sight…I do enjoy watching the way you wield your powers.
RF…I think you can tell if you’re starting with quality ingredients, but that doesn’t always mean the mix is good or the results guaranteed. Maybe your oven is just too HOT! ;)
72J..don’t listen to RF on that show me thing…it does still work in many cases.
Regina…I just think we’re going to have to disagree here because it seems like I’m discussing the grey areas and you’re only interested in discussing from a zero tolerance perspective.
By Jack
February 28, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
Wow. Where is Chuck? John, what have you done with him?
By Netbanker
February 28, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Oh please…as if John is the only one who would have done something to Chuck.
By The72John
February 28, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Don’t ask, don’t tell, Jack.
By Zack
February 28, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
I used to think Norman was the most insane person on this blog.
Not anymore.
Rush Limbaugh once said that it’s impossible to communicate with those on the left when you use reason. That statement has been verified numerous times on this blog, especially yesterday.
Don’t you just love how people say I’m full of hatred and then talk about how they’d like to drown me? Of course, they wouldn’t say or try anything of the sort if they were around me.
Someone (72John, maybe) made a statement that really got my attention yesterday. It was incorrect, but it got my attention because it’s scary how many people buy into his implication. He talked about how I would’ve been voted off long ago if this blog were reality TV. Guess what? That fact doesn’t matter. If six billion people in the world agree on something and are wrong, the fact that that many people agree changes absolutely nothing. It doesn’t matter who all thinks what. What’s true is true, and if no one believes it, that’s irrelevant.
Unfortunately, this warped consensus-embracing is seen in many avenues. We see it in schools, as professors seek for a common thread, never mind the fact that 90% of the time, there may be one or two people in the room who are correct, with everyone else being way off. A consensus is simply an average opinion and is nothing worth seeking for and nothing to hold in regard. Sadly, we’re also seeing this type of philosophy in churches, as the existence of absolute truth is ignored, in many cases, as acknowledging it might offend somebody. My gosh, we are so wrong.
As I said yesterday, I’m tired of people coming on here and not posting seriously. If your goal is to show everyone how twisted your mind is, you’ve already done it, so why continue?
By the way, a “glob of tissue” is as much a life as a 27-year-old professional athlete. Once conception occurs, life has begun. If you don’t realize this fact, again, keep it to yourself. Don’t try to impose your opinions against facts.
By Chilao
February 28, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Chuck is in a parent teacher conference. LOL
By lozen
February 28, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Jack, puhhhhhhllleeeeeeeesssssse, don’t mention the devil. Regina, “The key is to assist both the women and the men with job opportunities, educational opportunities, and child care until they can help themselves.” And just when do you think this program will begin?
By Chilao
February 28, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
I think it was the Zygote, probably the funniest thing I have read on this blog.
By Netbanker
February 28, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
How about don’t try impose your opinions AS facts, Zack?
By Regina
February 28, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, Yes, the scenario your friend Karen went through happens less now. I think more younger women are empowered to look for fulfillment outside of the traditional “female” role in the marriage. More younger couples view each other as equals that is why it is so silly to have the laws reflect the times of “Leave it to Beaver”.
However, it is so hard to trust one these days, whether you are male or female. I have seen divorces happen after one partner gets a windfall from an inheritance or whatever, whether they are male or female. Golddiggers come in both genders but some women are taught that they should be supported or taken care of.
I went to a Wheeler High School (East Cobb County) baseball game with a friend who has a child in attendance there. It was amazing how many mothers were flocking around the star of the team and introducing their daughters to him. It starts early. That is why in my volunteer work I emphasize to young girls they can have a valuable career and to work on their goals. Isn’t this what women have fought so hard for? I think so.
By Renee
February 28, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
bla is that show not hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Julia
February 28, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Regina-interesting lyrics. A Christian artist named Kathy Troccoli has a song called “A Baby’s Prayer” from a few years ago that is incredible!
Jack-is it hot in here or is it just you? ;)
I think anyone who wants to see non-custodial parents pay less child support has obviously never been a single custodial parent. I am one of those and it’s very hard. (Hard to do it all on your own. Not hard to be a parent.)
Yes, Kimberley, the guilt of NOT being able to be a stay at home mom and not being able to do the things you’d like to do with your child due to your work schedule. Believe me, I know all about that.
And, I agree with you about looking for that one good man to come along. (Still waiting…)
By Jack
February 28, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
I’m on here for fun Zack. Not to convert people. BTW everyone already knows my mind is twisted.
By The72John
February 28, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
You’ve hit it again, Net. She sounds more like a lobbyist than an actual person, hmm?
By RF
February 28, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Ohhhhkay, so Zack needs a day off and someone to tell him it’s okay to loosen the tie. If we were all always serious here, it wouldn’t be much fun would it?
I used to be part of your belief in the absolutes Zack. Anything remotely liberal was absolutely wrong! I woke up one day and realized how absolutely miserable I was, and how uninformed, how bigoted, and how brain-washed I was. If thinking with a moderate to liberal point-of-view is losing touch with reality, I’ll take it any day over the misery!
Lighten up, life’s too short to spend it being serious all the time!!
By Zack
February 28, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Why do some of you stereotype as you do and hate men so badly? I’m tired of how many of you defend the sluttiest of behavior and act like we’re supposed to accommodate everyone who participates in it.
By RF
February 28, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
maybe those on the left don’t listen to “reason” because those on the right are always shouting it and won’t listen to LOGIC.
By The72John
February 28, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
If your goal is to show everyone how twisted your mind is, you’ve already done it, so why continue?
Ah, excellent! I take this to mean that you will no longer be bombarding us with your raving lunacies?
By Brian Curtis
February 28, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Congratulations, Zack. Once again you’ve tried to derail another topic into your personal ravings about abortion.
Once again, you’ve declared that your personal opinion on the subject should be taken as absolute fact—and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you should shut up.
Once again, you apparently don’t see anything wrong with that.
And once again, you’ll be ignored. And rightly so.
RF: I respect your choice, but I disagree that people without kids are “missing out.� For some people, parenting is the right choice—but for many, many others, it’s not. And too many of them don’t realize that until it’s too late.
By lozen
February 28, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
A blob of tissue is a blob of tissue. The blob of tissue in a woman’s womb has the potential (and that’s all) of becoming a 27 year old human being. Life begins at birth, until then it’s a parasite living off the mother. The mother’s blood circulates thru the fetus. The fetus leeches the calcium from her bones and teeth, it presses down on her kidneys so she has to pee every 10 minutes. it is her body that bloats, her legs and feet and hands that swell with edema. It makes her puke every morning. In my opinion, and I’m the one who had two children, life begins at birth. As Mara said earlier, why don’t we have birthdays three months after the kid is born if it’s a living person from conception?
By Renee
February 28, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Thank you for posting that Regina. I was just contemplating abortion, but after reading that song (by the profound Nick Cannon), I will no longer be doing that. Aaaahh the power of music!
By phentermine
February 28, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
phentermine http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/phenterminecool/phentermine.html ; Thanks!
By Brian Curtis
February 28, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Zack’s pretty singleminded when it comes to sexual behavior, isn’t he? Can’t think of anything else, can’t talk about anything else. (In between raving about those darn gays, of course.)
More proof, methinks, that far-right religious zealotry either stems from repressed sexuality—or causes it.
By Chilao
February 28, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
Rush Limbaugh, Master of MisInformation, probably not the person to attribute any quotes to. LOL
Like Michael Moore is the Left’s Buffooon…..
some physics law comes to mind about balancing
By Jack
February 28, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
I can’t recall one man-hater on this blog. Yes Julia, it is hot in here. LOL
By RF
February 28, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
Zack- come on and say it. Just vent and feel better about yourself. What exactly, are you calling sluttish? What stereotypes do YOU wish to force upon us today??
Geez, and all this time I thought being happy and enjoying life were okay. How could I be so confused???
By lozen
February 28, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
LOTFLMAO BrianCurtis. Zack’s pretty singleminded when it comes to sexual behavior, isn’t he? Can’t think of anything else, can’t talk about anything else. (In between raving about those darn gays, of course.) More proof, methinks, that far-right religious zealotry either stems from repressed sexuality—or causes it.
By FatMoose
February 28, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Randy,
a “glob of tissue� is as much a life as a 27-year-old professional athlete. Once conception occurs, life has begun. If you don’t realize this fact, again, keep it to yourself.
Fact? You either mean opinion or… You are mixing two ideas and say they are equal: “a “glob of tissueâ€? is as much a life as a 27-year-old professional athlete.” would have to read: a “glob of tissueâ€? is as alive as a 27-year-old professional athlete. But it still would not be accurate, seeing one is active/talks/self aware and the other is NOT. You mix those notions, that are already flawed, with the simple notion that “Once conception occurs, life has begun.” But the issue is not whether something has life, but is a human and protected by personal rights - for roaches have life yet do not have the comfort of our Bill of Rights.
Would it be to hard to keep to the actual definitions of words? Especially words like FACT? It seems to be the one that gets you fundies into trouble (think ID vs evo…)
By lozen
February 28, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
OOpps. that was supposed to be: ROTFLMAO! Anyway, that was so right on. Zack is obsessed with sex and stamping out sex unless it’s in the marriage bed. Punish them dang women that have sex by forcing them to have kids they can’t take care of. If we did that, they’d stop having all that sex just like them murderers would stop killin’ if we put em in the electic chair and make it hurt as much as we can when we fry em too!
By The72John
February 28, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
Actually, I think Zack suffers from a Virgin/Whore complex. He’d make a fascinating subject for some enterprising young psych student’s thesis. Look at the evidence:
He obviously believes that men are superior to women, yet when pressed on the subject he’ll demure and say he believes nothing of the sort. This disclaimer is belied by the actual content of his postings.
He refers to all ACTUAL women as sluts, tramps, whores, etc. yet claims that women are good and pure creatures.
Classic Virgin/Whore dichotomy. I think serial killers sometimes have this problem!
By Jack
February 28, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
Happy trails to you….until we meet again.
He talks as one who has had none.
By sluttishwoman
February 28, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
I do defend slutty behavior especially when it’s men being slutty! Put on your tight pants and unbutton those shirts down to your navels guys. I like those enhanced bulges in the front of pants that every rock star has too. It’s nice to dream… for them and for me.
By RF
February 28, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
Brian- You’re right about parenting. I was just pointing out some of the good parts to Regina. I teach kids all day from homes where they weren’t planned or wanted apparently. It’s the sad part of my job seeing how lack of love and stability are affecting our kids. I wish more of the pregnant teens I’ve seen would think about the options before having babies. It’s why the cycle of poverty continues. I just wish we could get people to really think about the options before having babies.
The far right doesn’t know how sexually repressed it is. They think that crankiness is a sign of devotion. Ask kimberly, she’ll tell you how ‘rowdy’ they can get in private!
By Regina
February 28, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
You’ve got to continue to grow, or you’re just like last night’s cornbread—stale and dry. Loretta Lynn
lozen, “The key is to assist both the women and the men with job opportunities, educational opportunities, and child care until they can help themselves.� And just when do you think this program will begin?
We need organizations, churches, and volunteers to work together to provide our poor with options. It is better to aid a person while they get a college education, vocational training, etc. than support them for a lifetime.
By Jack
February 28, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
Lozen. Sparky is too kind & quick. Locking them in a room with Zack would be cruel and unusual punishment but would lower the crime rate.
By RF
February 28, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Regina- we need churches to do that, but how many are? How many are up to the baptismal fountain in debt so they can have an auditorium for a sanctuary, but are they offering job skills training and daycare for the poor? NOPE. That’s the gubment’s job! Atlanta Housing Authority is trying to do just that and for now it seems to be working. It’s too bad the rich mega-churches out there can’t quit buying the pastor’s Bentley and help take care of the poor, who in many cases live within blocks of the churches!
By GOB
February 28, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Do any states still use Ole’ Sparky??
By Renee
February 28, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Regina - you want to give the “poor” options, yet you want to strip a single mother of a percentage of her child support. Or do you only want to strip the wealthy women?
By kimberly
February 28, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
Yes, RF. The more repressed they are, the more FREAKY they get the moment they’re alone with their chosen “slut.” And not good freaky either. More like, “You want me to do WHAT?” freaky. And they’ll tell you that God told them to do it, too. AAACCCKKK!
By Regina
February 28, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
Renee,
No, I think the guidelines should reflect fairness. The cs guidelines in Georgia are so out of line with the rest of the country, people think they are losing out when they are changed to reflect fairness. I also think the fathers (or non-custodial parents) if they aren’t a threat to the children, should have as much time with the children as possible. This helps both parents. Joint legal and joint physical custody should be the norm in these cases. The mother (or custodial parent) has more free time and the non-custodial parent has more time with the children. Often, the children are used as financial pawns, more so in high income divorce cases than others.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
RF, I get disgusted with the mega-churches also who won’t help the poor in the very community of the Church. They are so busy preaching “Financial empowerment” which means the minister’s financial goals.
We need to continue to ensure our tax money go to solutions and not bandaids.
By The72John
February 28, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Giving tax money to churches isn’t a solution, it’s a disaster.
By Jack
February 28, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Regina thinks wealthy women don’t need men at all and wealthy men got that way with no help from the better half. Geez.
By FatMoose
February 28, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
Regina,
Nicely put.
Any time you take something away from someone, they will revolt - even when it is the right and fair thing to do. Hence the “You want to take $$ from single mothers! How dare you” attitude.
I know many fathers that are screwed by the system. And instead of making it a male vs female issue, it should remain a fairness/right issue.
Many people feel that if issue A is extremely unfair that somewhat unfair issue B should recieve no attention; and they get offended.
By that logic the world can only work on one problem at a time. And moreover, these people speak as though there are no laws in place to cover the issues that occur with issue A; but there are…many of them too. Women and children are the most protected group (regarding laws) in the US.
For example, there is no law that deals with a woman that does not pay her child support. My co-worker has taken his ex to court 3x to pay her share (he has full custody); and the judge simply states that “if he puts her in jail, how will she make the money then?”
By blablabla
February 28, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
A blob of tissue is a blob of tissue. The blob of tissue in a woman’s womb has the potential (and that’s all) of becoming a 27 year old human being. Life begins at birth, until then it’s a parasite living off the mother.
you do realize, lozen, that these are your opinions, and no more facts than the ones that zack parrots about.
and tell me, lozen, did you refer to your own children as parasites before they were born? how disturbing a description you provide…somehow i doubt you’re that tough on those who can actually hear you and defend themselves.
By Julia
February 28, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
Regina-you have a cookie cutter approach to life don’t you? Unfortunately (or maybe-fortunately) most of us do not fit the mold. Joint custody sounds good to an outsider I guess-but I do not want my son away from me for 6 months out of the year (several states away).
Everyone here loves to stereotype churches I see. (Mostly people that do not GO to any church.) My pastor does not drive a Bentley nor does he preach damnation to hellfire. We have a tremendous community outreach and are a great group of people. And to bust another steroetype you guys love to use-we are Baptist.
By blablabla
February 28, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
renee, i love the show. one nite mrs. bla and i watched a miniature marathon that took us from the beginning to about 7 or 8 girls left. it is hysterical.
new york has got to go. she is so awful. and she is just like her mom. i kept looking at the dad and couldn’t figure out how he fit into anything that the two ladies have going on. where did mom get the straw cowboy hat in syracuse, ny? and when they did the slow-mo of her attacking pumkin after pumkin spit in her face was one of the funniest things i’ve ever seen on tv. the rage…the mouth opening up to reveal the teeth…the nails flying out to grab pumkin and toss her into the camera man. it was great.
she never opens her eyes when she talks and she definitely looks like a tranny. “i love that beautiful man up there”. ha!!!!!
and what was pumkin thinking? that she could just spit in the b!tch’s face and walk away….like nothing would happen? “i don’t see what the big deal is, i’ve only been on like four game shows and a couple of televised blind dates…but i’m not trying to get on tv or anything, i don’t know what flav is talking about”
obviously i loove hoopz. have for awhile. she’s so hot. want to touch the heinie.
By Jack
February 28, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
FM. He should feel lucky to have gotten custody.
By Julia
February 28, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
A round of applause and a standing ovation for blablabla!!!
Well put!
By blablabla
February 28, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
Many people feel that if issue A is extremely unfair that somewhat unfair issue B should recieve no attention; and they get offended. By that logic the world can only work on one problem at a time. And moreover, these people speak as though there are no laws in place to cover the issues that occur with issue A; but there are…many of them too. Women and children are the most protected group (regarding laws) in the US.
well said, fat moose. there are certain people on the blog who fit this description to a T.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
FM (I abbreviated the name. I just can’t get used to calling anyone that even thought it is your selected screen name),
Yes, women are dealt with less harshly when they don’t pay their child support. More and more mothers are understanding how it feels to be a non-custodial parent now. At the age of fourteen, the child can choose what parent they want to live with and many boys choose to live with their fathers.
I also think the custodial parent should be held accoutable for how the child support funds are spent to ensure the monies are used for the care of the child. The custodial parent is only a custodian of the “child” or “children’s” money. It is not the custodial parent’s money.
By blablabla
February 28, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
ty, julia.
By RF
February 28, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
Julia- not knocking your church here, just asking for info. What does ‘community outreach’ mean in your church? I hear a lot of churches mention it, and all it boils down to is visitation and prayer. I’d love to see, and would volunteer to help with a church outreach that really did something practical like job skills training and help with daycare.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
Julia,
It was stated a lot of the mega-churches are not filling the void to help the community. We didn’t state a denomination. Personally, I come from a mixed religious background. Mother, Protestant (Baptist) and Father, Jewish.
By Renee
February 28, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
ROFLMAO bla….Yes!! I am in looooove with Hoopz (that’s a HOT woman, whew)…New York is crazy…about as crazy as Hottie LMAO…yes the slow mo of the aftermath on Pumkin after she spit on New York…hahahahah… OH, and I am convinced New York is a transexual hahahaha.
Flav is a horrid looking man, I can’t imagine him touching me, much less looking in my direction lol. We will have to talk after the end. My partner and I were wondering, what do they win besides Flavv??? hahaahah
By Renee
February 28, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Good Night everyone. I will see you next week. My family and I are going to New York City for the rest of the week and the weekend. I’ll be thinking of you.
Christopher Street here I come lol!!!
By FatMoose
February 28, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
FM. He should feel lucky to have gotten custody.
Illustrating my point;)
And he should not have to feel lucky is all I have to say about that.
By RF
February 28, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Jack- that’s one problem with the system. Guys feel lucky if they get custody and muddle through financially somehow. They’re expected to tough it out. Child support enforcement always favors the mother as a custodial parent. Sad, sad…
By RF
February 28, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
bla and Renee- who’d want the gross little man? I can’t imagine…
By Regina
February 28, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Julia, Joint physical custody doesn’t always mean you have the child 50% of the time. Joint legal and joint physical custody gives each parent the same level of custody. And with it, one parent is less likely to impede on the other’s parent’s time due to the legal ramifications. Does your ex-husband have your son during the summer?
May I ask, did you move away from your ex-husband or did he move away? If so, was it to be near family, a better job opportunity, or other reason? Many people after divorce try to sever the ties with the other parent not realizing they are doing their child a great disservice.
By FatMoose
February 28, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
It is not the custodial parent’s money.
In georgia it is. I know 5 women that recieve $1000-2000/mo for 1 and 2 children; but use that $ to pay for the mortgage of the house (3-4br houses) they got with custody as well as their small businesses (4/5 are slowly going bankrupt) - and they live under constant $$ stress bc of it.
Is this the norm - no, yet it is still unfair\wrong and should not be allowed; regardless of other unfair issues that also exist.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
Renee,
Have fun and have a safe, enjoyable trip!
By kimberly
February 28, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
WHAT child support enforcement? I know plenty of women who never received SQUAT. If they want to do something about it, they have to pay a lawyer to petition the judge to find him in contempt and order him to pay — effectively repeating the process from the first time around, which he just ignored. If he moves to another state or doesn’t have steady, salaried work, there’s no way to garnish. Do they put him in jail? Nope. What do they do? Nadda. If you can’t afford to pay a lawyer, you can’t even COMPLAIN to the judge!
By Netbanker
February 28, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Julia…are you SOUTHERN Baptist? I think folks tend to forget that there are more than one type. It is the Southern Baptist that seems to be most hypocritical and worthy of scorn.
Bla…I know plenty of folks who joke about their kids being parasites AFTER they’re born. Don’t take Lozen’s comments too personally since you’re ‘pregnant.’ She was making a point in language the Zack’s of the world can understand.
Regina…I also think the custodial parent should be held accoutable for how the child support funds are spent AMEN!
By Regina
February 28, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
Fathers have to spend a ton of money just to get custody. There are so many support groups and legal help for women but men are usually out there on their own. No wonder many men commit suicide or snap. Women just don’t realize how they affect situations when they pull the “gender” card.
Working with children, I also see the effect of not having their fathers in their lives. Some of the children’s parents were never married which automatically gives the father no rights unless he petitions the court. Then, the only right he has is to pay child support, not be involved with his child. In the case of divorce, often a woman wants to be seen as a martyr and won’t complete control of the children. Thus, the father is reduced to an every other weekend babysitter who can’t discipline or plan anything for their offspring. Women in the same position would scream to the hills about the unfairness. I only wish more of us could understand the dilemma we are putting children and our society in by pushing fathers away.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
FM, Technically, it is the child’s money, but you are correct in saying in Georgia it is the custodial parent’s money. I also know many who use the CS to pay the mortgage, car payments, etc. and then complain when the child’s expenses are taken care of.
Kimberly, Please…most poor women can use legal aid. Most other women petition to have the man pay their legal fees. As far as going to jail, I know many men who are in arrears through no fault of their own (due to downsizing and layoffs) thrown in jail. The men went to court to petition for a modification to their present income because they weren’t making their former salary only to be rejected and forced to pay as if they were still working or working at their higher salary.
By The72John
February 28, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
No wonder many men commit suicide or snap. Women just don’t realize how they affect situations when they pull the “gender� card.
Huh?
Regina, do you have anything other than negative stereotypes of women to support your arguments?
By Regina
February 28, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
Oops typo…I meant…In the case of divorce, often a woman wants to be seen as a martyr and wants complete control of the children.
By FatMoose
February 28, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
(chill a little;)
WHAT child support enforcement? Ummmm. The one that puts guys in jail for not paying so that they owe a larger sum of $ when they get out.
Are they slack? Absoluty, but the system is not helping either party.
Do they put him in jail? Nope. You should check your facts again - You are incorrect.
(Seems you may have some personal anger infused with this topic. When I am feel I have too many feelings entrenched in a subject, I find it unhealthy to pursue the topic. For usually I am arguing a past issue that is super-imposed on the current one. This does not allow me to make the best decisions I could - and actually will sabatage any good that could come out the effort many times.)
By Randy
February 28, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
I SEE WHERE PRO-LIFE HAS WON THE FIRST ROUND 8-0 ALITO NOT PARTICIPATING, ON DEMONSTRATIONS AT ABORTION CLINICS. KEEP UP THE GOOD MOMENTUM. LET CHILDREN BE SAFE IN THEIR MOTHERS WOMB.
By blablabla
February 28, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
net - i would take lozen’s comments at face value irrespective of my wife’s current condition. jokes are one thing - and we can all look at them with some hint of truth/humor. that i have no problem with. but when you’re in the midst of your personal rant about your beliefs and say something like that, i take it as a statement of your beliefs. i hear what you’re saying and agree, but the context of the comment is important, IMO.
By Netbanker
February 28, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
Have a GREAT Time Renee! Have a slice or two for me! And I want a report on how good the Rainbow Room is looking after it’s renovation. We’re thinking about heading to NYC in early May fora visit…it’s been 3 years…if only I can go to the city and avoid the visits with all the in-laws in North Jersey.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
The72John, I try my best to surround myself with positive people, regardless of gender. Yes, some women pull the “gender” card just like some Blacks or African-American pull the “race” card when they want their way.
By blablabla
February 28, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
renee,
hottie was a piece of work. i love how the editors put in the “cha-ching” every time she blinked. and how she absolutely lied her a$$ off during the polygraph test. the show is priceless.
i was sorry to see goldie go, but let’s face it, she doesn’t have the looks of the others. but i loved how he called her “country”…and how new york got all p** off that she was losing her man, TO A BIG GIRL, NO LESS!!!
he meets ny’s mom and tells her he’s 46. priceless. that show is so funny.
i’m surprised he kept pumkin around as long as he did. she just kept throwing herself at him.
and you’re right, flav is not pretty. but can you imagine how much fun you’d have living with that little lunatic? they go to the medieval show and he gets knigted. lol!
By Julia
February 28, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
RF-our church is always giving to those in need. We are a very large church and have so many things going on it’s almost hard to keep track. We offer many support groups for one thing. We donate money, food and clothing to the poor (as well as household items). We have recovery groups that help people overcome addictions. We give locally and in needy countries. There are very many volunteer opportunities for those interested in helping the needy. We try to offer whatever is needed to those that ask.
I know I’m proud to be a member of this church because the response is so overwhelming when there is a need that needs to be filled.
(I know I’m going to get slammed now because our church can’t help everybody with needs and can’t adopt all of the homeless children in the world.) We’re doing alot because we have thousands of members and therefore more funds to work with. We’re doing what we can as one church.
I can’t speak for the rest. But I’ve been to smaller churches that just do not have the resources to give the way they would like to. They can still help in other ways.
By Regina
February 28, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
Child support enforcement needs to look at some of their methods. Why throw a man in jail if he is in arrears? There has to be another way. He needs to work to pay off the arrears to keep the children off public assistance. One reason the man may be in arrears is the very scenario which happens everyday of a man losing his job through no fault of his own and can’t get a modification to reflect his current salary or unemployment.
By pulling his Driver’s license, CDL, or professional license is stupid, because he needs it to work to pay off the arrears and to stay current. All that does is force more arrears and waste of court time and taxpayer’s money. The solution must change…
For those who truly don’t care and won’t pay, then jail should be the solution.
By Julia
February 28, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this
Net-no, I’m not a “Southern” Baptist.
Regina-He moved several states away and has made no contact since. Since he moved to another state we had to go to court in THAT state and use THAT state’s child support rules. Which meant my child is receiving half of what he would have received if he’d stayed in Georgia. So, he got a deal huh? I didn’t even have the money to travel out of state for court. They made it look like I couldn’t be “bothered” to show up for court.
By Whiley
February 28, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this
Randy, A BABY IS ALREADY BORN. A fetus is nothing more than a fetus. A fetus does NOT have rights that over ride a GROWN WOMAN. And RANDY DO YOU EVEN EVER PAY ATTENTION???? Women TODAY can’t get men to pay for the children they help create, WHO DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO FLIP THE BILL FOR ALL THE BABIES THAT ARE BORN BY FORCE???? ANSWER THE QUESTION FETUS LOVER ! ! ! !
And btw the Pro fetus crowd will not win in the long run. The women in this country aren’t going to put up with this for long. Fetus lovers have all the time in the world to sneak stupid legislation like this into passing. They need to get real jobs.
By phentermine
March 1, 2006 12:35 AM | Link to this
phentermine http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/phenterminecool/ ; Thanks!
By Brian Curtis
March 1, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this
Whiley, don’t bother responding to Randy. He only shows up to ignore the conversation and interject something inane about abortion and the need for all “smart people” to follow Jesus like he does.
You can’t teach a pig to sing….
By RF
March 1, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this
Brian- remember reading Animal Farm in high school? There’s a story of a pig with grand visions, and look what happened to him!! Should give Randy some food for thought, but it won’t.
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this
You’re right Brian. He can’t answer my questions anyway because he has no intelligent answer.
Anyway’s, there’s nothing wrong with both parents working as long as they are decent, loving & positively involved in their children’s lives. Especially involved in their children’s education. A good student almost always has parents that know what’s going on with him/her.
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this
Good day all.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Why throw a man in jail if he is in arrears? There has to be another way. He needs to work to pay off the arrears to keep the children off public assistance.
Okay, I have to jump in here today since Renee won’t be in.
First of all, if a man was doing what he was supposed to do, he wouldn’t be in arrears - generally speaking, that is.
Secondly, if a man was willing to work to pay off the arrears, he wouldn’t be in arrears. The whole reason he’s in arrears is because he either doesn’t want to work, or doesn’t want to pay his child support.
And, I’m totally not buying the “lost his job” nonsense. Do responsible single mothers “lose” their jobs and suddenly become unable to take care of their children? Heck no. A responsible mother who loses her job does one of a few things (1) finds another job quick, fast, and in a hurry so she can continue to feed and provide shelter for her children, (2) obtains unemployment assistance so she can continue to feed and provide shelter for her children, (3) obtains public assistance so she can continue to feed and provide shelter for her children, (4) moves in with parents/relatives so she can continue to feed and provide shelter for her children, (5) cuts back on her personal expenses, including in some cases EATING, so she can continue to feed and provide shelter for her children.
Meanwhile, the man who loses his job should just be given all the time he needs to get back on his feet…
By Regina
March 1, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
Julia, That’s strange because it is extremely hard to change the state which has jurisdiction over the child support if the child is still residing in that state.
It is sad he is missing out on his son’s life. I know divorce is hard, but I wish the adults could put their feelings aside for the benefit of the children. Children shouldn’t be put in the middle. They should be free to love both parents and spend quality time with both parents.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
I’m not sure how it works when you already have a child support order, but I do know that if you’re trying to get a child support order and the parent lives in another state, you can file your claim in your state, but you have to go to court in the parent’s state.
Which, by the way, SUCKS.
By RF
March 1, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
JBM- uh-hmmmm that’s what I’m saying. I think the noncustodial parents get a “get out of jail free card” so to speak. When you have the kids 24/7, you tend to be more diligent because you have to feed them every day. I can’t imagine for the life of me why any father who claims to love his children would begrudge a single penny for their care.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
I completely agree, RF.
It cracks me up to hear people defend deadbeat dads (or moms) because of their “situation.” You think the parents who are victims of Hurricane Katrina or any other tragedy stopped feeding their children because they lost their jobs and homes and whatever else???? Heck no. But, the non-custodial parents (the deadbeat ones) won’t be paying their fair share any time soon…
IT ABSOLUTELY SUCKS.
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
JBM,
I find it obvious that regina (and some others) have made it clear that if a father does not pay CS out of refusal, he should be jailed.
Having that said:
But the point you are arguing against does in fact exist, and your reply is “And, I’m totally not buying the “lost his jobâ€? nonsense.” Search it yourself - no one is asking you to “buy it” on face value, yet to rebut it you will have to do more than say such simple words as your premise.
In the end, the point is: Do you find it acceptable that 15% of the men doing time for arrears are in there bc they did loose their jobs, and were rehired at a lower salaries. In order to change the amount of money they contribute, they too have to petition the court, and are often denied? (and once again - the other %85 deserves punishment, they are not the topic)
To say that you do not believe many people (especially recently) are loosing their jobs is not honest. And do not forget that people in the reserves have to stop their good paying jobs to go to war and get paid much less - leaving them to go to war for us and come back to a hearing for arrears bc they had a dictated salary changed.
By Julia
March 1, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
Regina and Just Being Me-I went through the Child Support Enforcement Agency and they filed it in the other state. I fought to keep it in Georgia but they said it would have to be in the state that has jurisdiction over the father.
They should be free to love both parents and spend quality time with both parents.
Oh, that sounds peachy keen. However, he walked out and has never even seen his child or contacted me again. Not much I can do about that except find a REAL man who wants to be a father to my son. Still searching and still very hopeful for that to happen! :)
By Netbanker
March 1, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
You may not be able to teach a pig to sing, but if you squeeze his balls hard enough he’ll hit some really high notes when he squeals.
I don’t have kids and never anticipate having to raise any, but for the life of me I can’t understand the non-payment of child support. I can’t imagine having to give up or not provide for my pet and a child is whole lot more than that. How do these people live with themselves? While I certainly don’t want to force women to have kids I do think I could support forced vasectomy or tubal ligation for a person who doesn’t pay for their existing children. If they aren’t supporting or having relationships with the one(s) they’ve already created then why should they have the right or opportunity to further burden society through their own carelessness, callouseness, and selfishness?
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
You think the parents who are victims of Hurricane Katrina or any other tragedy stopped feeding their children because they lost their jobs and homes and whatever else???? Heck no. But, the non-custodial parents (the deadbeat ones) won’t be paying their fair share any time soon…
So, you have no concern for the thousands of fathers that were payig CS until loosing their home and jobs to katrina, ending up in arrears and them jail???? You find this something that “cracks you up?”
Yes. The mother will probably go to her parents or a friends - what does that have to do with squat? She/He could stay at a shelter too - what resort does a father have? There is not an agencey that the father can go to that performs such emergency services as to pay his CS in a temp loan or such. He can do only the same as his ex, move in with family or stay at a shelter or eat less - but none of those types of assistance aliviates the fact that he does not have a job - or has one that pays substantially less that his previous one.
By Brian Curtis
March 1, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
I think a lot of assumptions are being made that the non-custodial parent is somehow automatically a “wrongdoer” who has no further rights in the situation.
I disagree. Treating one person as the “real” parent (by granting custody) and the other as simply a source of funding strikes me as unjust and unreasonable. Naturally, there will be resentment.
There’s a lot of talk about failure to pay child support (i.e., “deadbeat dads”); does anyone know how common “failure to allow visitation” occurs in comparison (perhaps “missing moms”)?
Plenty of legitimate evasion of responsibility occurs, and it should be dealt with. But I also think that exiling one parent to the status of walking wallet is not always justified or appropriate. We need to re-think this system.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
Julia, oh honey you don’t have to explain it to me, I went through a similar situation. I have absolutely no recourse (that I’m aware of). I was told by the local CSEA that I would have to first obtain the SSNs for my child’s parents (she’s not biologically mine), and then I could file it here, but would have to pursue the case in the state of the parent’s residence (mind you, the mother lives in the south, about 8 hours away, and the father lives in the northeast, about 15 hours away. Lucky me.
Oh, and did I mention that the mother was convicted of collecting welfare funds for the child that I’m raising for years, and to this day hasn’t so much as sent a $5 bill for a birthday or graduation or holiday.
NetB. I’m almost inclined to agree with you, and I feel the same way for women who don’t take care of their children. I don’t think anyone who contributes to the conception of a child and chronically doesn’t show any interest in raising or supporting the child should not be able to continue bringing children into this world.
And, having a child and pets, I agree with you that I could not imagine my cats, dog or turtles not having food to eat, much less my child. I would starve before I let one of my children even experience a growling stomach. There is absolutely NO excuse - except perhaps a debilitating mental illness - for a parent not taking care of their child. NO EXCUSE.
By blablabla
March 1, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
bravo, brian curtis. very well said.
By RF
March 1, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Net- ya took the whole pig thing to a entirely new level there!! I bet if the deadbeat dads had to be subjected to that treatment, they’d find a way to pay some support! LOL
Moose- I’m sure if the dads kept in touch, then the moms would have to understand after something like Katrina. I haven’t heard of a flood of non-support subpoenas since the hurricane. If dad has been doing his part then any adjustments to his support amount should be agreeable. But if he’s already habitually late, he shouldn’t be allowed an ‘out’. This is one of those issues without easy answers. As a custodial parent, I know I can’t just reduce my income and say ‘well, sorry’ to the kids. If I were depending on the help of another, I don’t think I could allow him/her to just say, “I got this new job, you know, and it pays a lot less…”. What would he do if he/she if he/she was the custodial parent? It’s easy to justify when you’re not the one having to feed the kids.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Brian, if you read my comments you’ll see that I take issue equally with deadbeat dads and deadbeat moms. And, in my personal situation, I deal with both a deadbeat dad and mom. Now, I can certainly - without a shadow of a doubt - prove how they are deadbeats without so much as a whisper about monetary support. But, it seems that the topic at hand relates to financial support, so that’s what I’m referring to.
And, I certainly don’t think anyone is saying one is the “real” parent just because they have custody. I think we’re mostly using the term “custodial” and “non-custodial.” The unfortunate truth of the matter is that the non-custodial parent (whether mother or father) rarely does as much for the child(ren) as the custodial parent does. I am personally aware of situations where the non-custodial parent does as much as, or more than, the custodial parent. But, this is definitely the exception, not the rule.
In most cases, the custodial parent is the one who is primarily burdened with financially supporting the child, and as Renee and RF pointed out yesterday, 23% is a nice gesture, but nothing more. I only have one child, and she would starve and freeze if only 23% of my income went to her. I’m personally sick of hearing talk about what happens if the father (or non-custodial) loses his job? Who gives a flying fig? What the heck do you think happens if the custodial parent loses her (or his) job???? Does that mean she (or he) just stops supporting the kids? Heck no. She’ll cut her arm and feed them blood if she has to. Meanwhile, the deadbeat parent will go before a judge and say, “well, you can’t get blood out of a turnip. I lost my job, I ain’t got no income.”
To that, I say, take your sorry, no-job having behind down to McDonalds and sweep their floors if you have to so you can FEED YOUR CHILDREN.
By The72John
March 1, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
I understand the concerns expressed. Yes - it is unreasonable that a non-custodial parents paying child support be imprisoned because he or she suffers from circumstances beyond their control - absolutely. Cases should be treated on a case-by-case basis.
However, the point that JBM and others are trying to make - correct me if I’m wrong guys - is that the custodial parent does not have the OPTION of cutting back on child support when circumstances get grim. They have to make personal sacrifices in order to provide for their children.
My ex-brother-in-law, hereafter refered to as “nogood” plays this card all the time, mostly because he is so self-absorbed that he can’t hold a job and has wasted years and years dilletanting around UGA switching majors every six months. My sister has done without child support many months because he just can’t scrape up the funds. Of course, he can still scrape up tuition money and other money.
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
This is being circultated, I love it, I knew women wouldn’t stand for this !
—“I’ve got a pile of wire hangers and am hunting for a box as we speak. Everyone should be doing this. Preferably with a letter that says something like “We realize that after you sign the anti-abortion bill, your state health agencies will need vast stockpiles of these to handle the demand. Here is our meager donation.”
The address for the governor’s office is: Office of the Governor 500 E. Capitol Ave. Pierre, SD 57501
Now someone should think of something clever to send the SD Governor about the million+ women & children on welfare they’ll have once they take away all reproductive rights. I’m thinking they’ll also need some reminders of the number of jails they’ll need to build to house all the fathers that can’t or won’t pay the child support for all these kids born of forced births.
yeww I’d hate to be a taxpayer in THAT state.
By RF
March 1, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
Brian- it’s clearly a case by case issue. I sure wouldn’t pay if the mother didn’t let me see them. I’d have my lawyer involved too. If one parent fails on his/her end, there needs to be legal recourse. To date, the facts tend to indicate a larger problem with non-custodial support than with not allowing visitations. Why would you allow visitations to a parent who doesn’t help support the kids? I’m talking about basic necessities here, not keeping mom in a Jag and the kids in private school.
I went through this with my sister and her ‘husband’. They wouldn’t pay court ordered support (200 a month!!!), but harassed me mercilessly for visits. I let them visit anyway for a while, but all I did was allow them to continue their crack addiction AND get to see their kids. Hardly fair I think.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
However, the point that JBM and others are trying to make - correct me if I’m wrong guys - is that the custodial parent does not have the OPTION of cutting back on child support when circumstances get grim. They have to make personal sacrifices in order to provide for their children.
That’s exactly what I’m saying, John. Thanks for hitting the nail on the head, as usual.
I have personally seen men in court with their designer jeans (I don’t care if a girlfriend bought them, or if they were purchased before the guy lost his job) and his cell phone in pocket (even a Metro phone is $40 that could go toward the child’s field trip expenses, or lunch money) at court telling the judge he can’t afford to pay the measly $140 a week because his job cut back on his hours and he’s only bringing in $200.
I don’t give a flying fig newton if he’s only bringing in $141. The kids don’t stop getting hungry because you are working fewer hours. The rent that houses those children doesn’t suddenly get paid by some mysterious benefactor just because you came to work late 7 times in one week and were the first one to be laid off. And, I hate to say it because it’s harsh, but the truth is that the kids don’t stop outgrowing their clothes just because you got some serious illness and can’t go to work.
My point is (as John so eloquently clarified) that no matter WHAT goes on in the non-custodial parent’s world, the children’s needs will go on.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Whiley, while I get the point, and I like the fact that these women are speaking out for their rights, I want to point out that according to an article I read, only 800 abortions are performed in the entire state each year.
Again, I’m not saying that SD should take away the women’s rights to abort, I’m just saying that it’s hardly accurate to say that there is a demand for abortion in the state. Relatively, it seems there is little demand.
I guess I’d be curious to know how SD compares (percentage-wise) to other states in abortion rates…
By Netbanker
March 1, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
72J….there is a difference (as I know you are well aware) between can’t and won’t. What I’m hearing the issue of payment coming down to is attempting to find a workable resolution for those who won’t pay rather than can’t pay. From a practical standpoint it doesn’t really make sense to jail or take away driving privileges from those who can’t pay or are in arrears due to circumstances beyond their control. So what is an appropriate punishment? I’m inclined to say we should force them into a national job corps like program…let’s use the military bases that will be closing to house them and as a base for operations…they earn room and board while having to live in a dormitory and a small amount of spending money for personal effects…the remainder is paid to the child…the benefit to the general citizen is that streets/gutters are cleaned, pot holes filled, park equipment painted/maintained, day care centers built in low income areas, etc. While I do realize this means that as a tax payer I’m ultimately providing the funds for the child support at least there is a benefit of publics works projects being completed.
By RF
March 1, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
John- exactly the point!
I almost lost my house once trying to keep all the ends meeting during a rough period for us shortly after getting custody of my boys. Noone cut me any slack because I suddenly didn’t have the money I had before. I was expected to somehow find it and I did by working my butt of on weekends cutting grass, cleaning houses, and doing odd jobs. I was still the full-time parent and didn’t cry foul. I got busy and pinched pennies until we got through. I didn’t like it, and it wasn’t fun, but it meant feeding my kids and keeping a house for them to live in, so I did it. I don’t think it’s fair that the noncustodial parents could choose not to pay what was ordered of them and get away with it while I worked extra to make up for it. Okay, I obviously need to let this go before I hyperventilate (climbing down off soapbox).
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
I have a hard time saying what I would do if in that situation, because despite my best efforts, I can be pretty difficult at times. But, I’d like to think that I would still pay CS if I couldn’t get visitation. Of course, I’d hire a lawyer in the meantime to fight to see my children. But, I kinda think that even if my children’s father (or other mother) was being an idiot and not putting my children first, they still have to eat, and it’s still 50% my responsibility to feed them. I would also continue to send holiday cards and gifts if it means I have to go to their schools to deliver it (assuming we’re in the same state). Again, I can’t say with certainty what I would do if in that situation because I’m not in it, but I really think the right thing to do is to continue making the payments.
In all honesty, I’m the one who chose to lay up with the idiot and make babies with him/her, so that’s really my fault, not the kids. They didn’t choose their father/other mother, I did.
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Just being me is that true? 800 per year? I wonder how many providers are in that state? Wonder how many women go across state lines.
What’s the population of that state anyway?
By Chilao
March 1, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
Am I hearing strong arguments for Zero Population Growth?
might be just me >LOL
there are even whole organizations related to Father’s Rights, since they often get the short end of the stick, even when they are being financially responsible.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
RF, I’m totally with you on your 11:42. Especially the last sentence.
And, NetB. I think there’d first have to be an agreement on what “can’t” really means. In some cases (obviously not all), “can’t” means that the NCP (legalese for non-custodial parent) didn’t like his boss, or the NCP “ain’t trying to work for $7.50 an hour and have half of it taken out by the courts,” or the NCP has a bum knee and can’t find work.
I mean clearly, clearly there are some valid excuses for not being able to pay as much child support (e.g. undergoing chemotherapy and too ill to drive the MARTA bus or operate heavy machinery). But, I think that some people are wayyy too lenient on what they accept as a valid excuse for not being “able” to pay child support.
By Chilao
March 1, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
754,000 is SD population, seems timber products also a big thing. I was wrong about the dairy heifers, they come more from North Dakota. ND and SD are the only two continental US states I have never been to.
http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/sdakota.htm
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Whiley, according to Wikipedia, the 2005 population was 775,933. And, in that same article I referred to earlier, the sole provider of abortions in the entire state was one (yes ONE) Planned Parenthood location.
By lozen
March 1, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
Blabla, A blob of tissue is a blob of tissue. The blob of tissue in a woman’s womb has the potential (and that’s all) of becoming a 27 year old human being. Life begins at birth, until then it’s a parasite living off the mother. you do realize, lozen, that these are your opinions, and no more facts than the ones that zack parrots about. and tell me, lozen, did you refer to your own children as parasites before they were born? how disturbing a description you provide…somehow i doubt you’re that tough on those who can actually hear you and defend themselves.
What are you talking about Bla? What do you call a plant that cannot live without attaching itself to another plant?Parasite! What do you call an animal that lives off another animal’s blood? Parasite. Fetuses are parasites as long as they cannot live without the mother host. That’s a biological fact. And you might want to listen to BrianCurtis. I was not addressing you since you aren’t totally insane when it comes to fetus rights. I was addressing Zack’s crazy insistence that fetuses are babies and that the rights of a fetus are more important than the rights of a living, breathing, tax paying woman! And no, I didn’t refer to my children as parasites before they were born but biologically that’s what they were. Geez.
By Regina
March 1, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
FM, I don’t think a man should go to jail unless he is truly, truly a deadbeat. Most men who are in arrears are saddled with a high child support based on an imputed income or just an unfair child support award. Therefore, many of the men who are viewed as deadbeats really aren’t…they are made that way by the system.
The judge can impute a man’s income and base his child support on what he used to make. Many men in the IT field were affected by this very thing when the field downsized. Their child support was based on the salaries they used to make. Now with the new guidelines, women will understand how it feels to have their incomes imputed.
Many women think the child support should cover all the expenses at the home. Most adults have a place to stay and transportation. The child support is not supposed to pay the mortgage or the car payment. It is for the child’s portion of the grocery bill, child care/schooling, clothing, their bedroom. The adult would have rent/mortgage, transportation, etc. costs anyway.
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
You know, that’s also 800 women that would have been forced to somehow get across states lines, actually find a provider, find transportation & fund all the extra expenses. 800 women that would have to find a way to get off work during the week if that was even possible, 800 women that would probably need childcare for the time they were gone, 800 women who would have to find a way or reason to get away from an abusive husband or boyfriend & get an abortion. 800 women’s lives deserve legal, safe & available family planning including abortion in that state.
By Julia
March 1, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
Just Being Me-you sound like a really GREAT mom! :) I completely agree with your remarks regarding child support.
I also agree that every situation is different. I was just explaining my personal situation.
Father’s Day is my least favorite holiday. I usually take that day off from work and spend with my son. (The other kids are usually making Fathers Day cards and stuff. So we avoid it altogether to avoid his feelings being hurt. (He’s only 5.) He has said several prayers asking Jesus for a “daddy and a brother”. He’s the most wonderful boy in the whole world and I would lay down my life to protect him.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
While I’m on the subject and still venting, I also want to add that I think they need to find a way around forcing the custodial parent to obtain a SSN for the NCP before he/she can file for CS.
Telling me that I had to have social security numbers for my daughters deadbeat parents was telling me, in other words, “hang it up, Lady. You’ll never get a dime.” And, that p** me off.
By Regina
March 1, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Chilao,
Fathers do get the short end of the stick and the families of the fathers are cheated out of seeing their family members. There are mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, and cousins who are supportive of fathers being treated equally in family court.
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
754,000 ??!!! Holy moly Chilao !
No wonder they want a forced pregnancy state ! !
By Netbanker
March 1, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
You single parents are my heros. It’s amazing what all y’all have gone through, done, and continue to do for your kids.
RF…please be careful climbing down since you’ve got no butt left (after working it off) to cushion a fall and soap is slippery.
By The72John
March 1, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
There seems to be a tendancy to make this a gender issue, so I’m glad that RF is here as a male custodial parent to counter that perception. I think that is what I found instantly offputting about Regina’s arguments - they all said, when you get right down to it, “Those poor hard-working, wonderful men are being taken advantage of by spiteful, gold-digging women!”
This makes it very adversarial. I’ve no doubt there are women out there who use their children as a weapon against their exes, but no doubt there are an equal number of men who do the same. Instead of making this about man v. woman, shouldn’t it REALLY be good parent v. bad parent?
Sorry, but Regina’s arguments sound like some of the “How a proper woman should behave” articles from 1950’s Woman’s World or Redbook.
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
ONE abortion provider in the whole state?????? Then absolutely there were more than 800 abortions done that year, they were just forced to go out of state. I’ll bet going across state lines was closer than the ONLY PROVIDER in the state. Shameful. Sick
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me-you sound like a really GREAT mom! Thanks, Julia. I’m not, but I’m working on it. :-/
Your son’s prayers brought tears to my eyes. Does he have any other father-figures in his life (uncle, grandfather, neighbor)? If not, you may want to consider getting him a Big Brother. It’s such an effective program.
By The72John
March 1, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Most men who are in arrears are saddled with a high child support based on an imputed income or just an unfair child support award. Therefore, many of the men who are viewed as deadbeats really aren’t…they are made that way by the system.
Just what do you consider “fair”, Regina? Is it unfair if the non-custodial parent has to struggle a little to make it each month?
Custodial parents constantly struggle to make it through each month, so why shouldn’t the non-custodials have to suck it up, too?
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
I agree with you, John. I’m doing my best to completely ignore this Regina and her ridiculously outdated and unrealistic views. She’s the third person ever to make my “ignore” list.
What a joke.
By RF
March 1, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Julia- I’ve been really lucky with my boys and holidays. I make it a point to explain our situation to their teachers, and so far they’ve been great about making sure my boys don’t feel left out. It’s hard on them having neither mom nor dad around, but they adjusted and in the end seem to be fine with it because they have such stability and focus on them at home. Your son will be fine as long as he has you and the love he needs. You’ll find out he’s one of the majority these days—more kids come from single-parent or blended families than from traditional families anymore.
By lozen
March 1, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
How can we expect 12, 13, 14 year olds who get pregnant and are forced to have babies to be responsible enough to take care of them or pay child support? An adult is one thing; a teenager is another. So when can we get rid of Roe v. Wade, Zack, and start having government (my tax money and your tax money) pay for all the millions of unwanted children in this country?
By Jack
March 1, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
Regina sounds like a defense lawyer for deatbeat fathers.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
An afterthought, while RF provides the male custodial parent’s viewpoint, he also provides (as do I) the viewpoint of a non-biological parent, in which case the deadbeat parent(s) tend to be both the mother and the father.
Personally, I feel no more hostility toward deadbeat dads than I do deadbeat moms. I think any human being who conceives a child and does not contribute at least 50% toward the cost of that child’s caretaking is a deplorable human being not worthy of any respect or defense at all. In my preferred terms, he or she SUCKS.
By Justin
March 1, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
I am not saying all women are not good parents but not all women are good parents. However, the bad mothers get chance after chance in society even if they are crackheads. There are bad fathers but there are a lot of good fathers who get treated bad simply because they are male.
I just want people to be viewed in an unbiased way in family court.
By Chilao
March 1, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
A news item I just read today, seems Mississippi now also has, in committee, a bill patterned after the one in SD. They really want to get this to the new Supreme Court. I just ran into a web-site, when researching a rural south river town, that had a link to someplace called ‘takebackamerica’, one of those “we are a Christian nation so y’all better get in-line” web-sites.
RF - yes, more than just Father’s affected by a split.
By Chilao
March 1, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
oh, that was Regina made the father’s side of the family comment, not RF, I t’was reading quickly. apologies all.
By RF
March 1, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
thanks Net- you’d do it all too if you had a child. Speaking of which, I thought you and hubby were planning to one day?
-I have a good safe route to and from the soapbox. I seem to get up there quite a bit when we’re discussing family and child issues : )
John- there are more custodial fathers than people realize. They tend to be less noticed because they work and rarely make a fuss over the deadbeat mom. They do what society expects- they work and take care of the family. The courts rarely give them anything from the mother anyway.
By Netbanker
March 1, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
JBM…I concur that a clear definition of “can’t pay” would be needed for any plan to be reasonable. The cases of can’t that you cite are, I’m rather certain, very common but are still ‘won’t pays’ in my mind.
An educational inquiry to those of you who may/would know…in GA is an attorney required to file for garnishment of wages or can an individual do this? I’m asking because many moons ago when I worked for Norwest in Maryland I handled all the legal filings and attended court for all our deadbeat loan cases. On occassion I would file the paperwork on a client’s behalf to garnish for child support when I found someone on a skip/trace that I was trying to track down for non-payment on a loan.
Julia…I’m on the verge of tears for your little boy at Father’s Day. I know you aren’t the only one who goes through that, but it’s just got to be heart breaking to see your child hurting so much over their absentee father.
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
However, the point that JBM and others are trying to make - correct me if I’m wrong guys - is that the custodial parent does not have the OPTION of cutting back on child support when circumstances get grim. They have to make personal sacrifices in order to provide for their children.
And the poitn I am making is that how much does the “personal sacrifices” put in ones pocket? Bc, if a NCP (non-cust-parent) looses their job, they would presumably also move in with mom/dad/friend and “sacrifice” the extras - but that does not matter when it comes to $$ owed.
It is simple: NCP looses job that paid 42k which comes to $805 a month in CS. NCP gets a job doing lawns for $28k - but is still expected to pay the $800. So he moves in with mom/dad/friend and begins eating ramin noodles, sells car for moped and ect. The sacrifices ARE NOT going to cover the difference - which at that point is not the NCP’s “fault” just as if they were still married and it played out this way.
Loosing a job should not be a criminal offence.
But instead - people want to obsess over what we DO al agree on - a NCP that does not pay CS habitually bc of laziness or drugs & etc deserves jail time. And a %15 error in incarceration (sp?) (heck - any percentage) is unacceptable.
By kimberly
March 1, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
72John, I tried finding your space last night, but had no success. Searched on your handle, variations thereof, and even “ChuckIsAnA—Hole”.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
NetB, if a judgment has been issued against a person, an attorney is not required to file for garnishment of wages. In many cases, a legal aide-type person can handle the paperwork for under $200.
By RF
March 1, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
Moose- if he loses the 42k job, are any of his other debts excused? He still has to pay Visa and the car loan. Logically, he should be able to calmly deal with the mother and make adjustments. I’m sure that happens in a lot of cases. Losing a job is not a criminal offense, but if you don’t pay your bills, you lose your stuff or hope for bankruptcy protection. Why should child support be any different? Visa didn’t lower my balance because I changed jobs and took a $250 per month paycut.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
I’m going to hate myself for this, but…
If an NCP loses his 42K/year job for any reason whatsoever - whether through fault of his/her own or not - and takes a $28K/year job, he or she still earns enough income to continue paying $805 a month, just like the custodial parent would have to. CHILDREN DON’T STOP GETTING HUNGRY BECAUSE YOU LOST YOUR JOB. Children still have to eat, still outgrow their clothes, still need a roof over their heads…
It may be really tight to go from earning $3500 a month to $2300 a month, but the children shouldn’t have to suffer because of a parent’s misfortune or bad decisions. The parent should have to cut back on his/her expenses to be able to afford to continue caring for that child on the same level as always.
That’s my stance, pure and simple.
By Mara
March 1, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Hey y’all.
Whiley, the shock is not only do they have just one abortion clinic in the whole state, they actually had to import medical personel from Minnesota to service the demand, and they could come only once a week. Extrapolated out, that’s 15-16 desperate women every single week.
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
What would you you all do if your “breadwinner” lost their job? Would he be arrested for not contributing as much to the family? Would you go out and get a job?
The situations are not really any different - you married this person and now have a JOINT responsibility in doing whatever you CAN to provide BEST you CAN.
Just because on exiting the relationship you were making ends meet in a particular fashion does not make that the perminent bar.
By The72John
March 1, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Last time I checked no one thinks that losing a job should be a criminal offense. Last time I checked no one had a problem with child support payments being reduced. We’re not obsessing - we’ve moved on to other facets.
I’m sure even you can agree that “I need to reduce my child support so I can pay my cable bill and my internet bill” from a non-custodial parent in unacceptable, given that the CUSTODIAL parent is likely to cut these things out in order to provide for the child.
Kimberly - my Myspace url extension is just my handle :-)
By Brett
March 1, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
It’s a blue-collar career path with dead-end opportunities. The only chance of promotion is called procreation, bringing with it the job title of “Mother� or “Father.� But don’t be fooled by the hype of parenthood. This job doesn’t come with retirement benefits.
Once again Diane shows the deep-rooted disdain that liberals and the left in general have for the traditional American family core: the stay-at-home-mom. Diane reminds me of that witch Thereeeeeeza Heinz-Kerry (hyphenated last names on a woman almost guarantees she’s an ignoranus bedwetting liberal) who said that teachers don’t have real jobs (when she spoke of Laura Bush). Where else doth there be proof that liberals are agains the traditional American family than the movie Brokeback Mountain, which they embrace as Oscar material. Thank about it: liberals embrace a movie that glorifies the breakup of a traditional family marriage between a man and a woman where the two men have a homosexual affair. How quaint.
Diane says that raising a family is “blue collar” work with a “dead end.” Diane further shows her arrogance towards the American family by stating that it doesn’t come with retirement benefits. What an assinine thing to say. So growing old and having your children bring your grandchildren to you for a visit is not a retirement “benefit” of having a kid? (Isn’t that just like a damn socialist liberal to bring up “benefit” in a conversation about being a homemaker.. everything in the world of a liberal is about ME ME ME! GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE! I’M ENTITLED TO THIS! I HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT!).
Diane is the epitome of the pseudo-intellect femenazis who chose to be bigshot workers and never settle down with kids. One day her and her ilk will grow old and die a sad and lonely death with nobody to be there for them. And Diane is kidding nobody with her vain attempt at claiming up front that her view was humor only. My A* she and her ilk on the left don’t have this anti-traditional American family attitude.
By Netbanker
March 1, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
I’m very willing to become a parent and have been told by several folks that I’d probably make a pretty good one. Hubby is too set in his ways and selfish about his time to seriously consider child rearing…at least he readily admits it now even though he was the one who first brought up the topic of being parents and was interested in having a biological child. Patience isn’t one of his virtues and trying to learn it through being a parent isn’t exactly a recipe for success from my standpoint. Oh well…at least I have Abby to love on and spoil. And I’m looking into following up my donation to Youth Pride with volunteering time at their center. I suppose you don’t have to have a child of your own to be (or try to be) a positive influence in a kids life.
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
RF,
Visa didn’t lower my balance because I changed jobs and took a $250 per month paycut.
And they cannon arrest you for it either (it is a civil matter, not criminal) - and they would not if they could bc then they would NEVER get money. They know it does not serve anyones purpose - as does the gvmt, hence why debt is not criminal.
By The72John
March 1, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Who invited the unable-to-think-for-himself-so-Limbaugh-does-it-for-him troglodyte?
By RF
March 1, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
Moose- I’m sure you know the answer to that question. In my situation, I AM the bread-winner, the one and only support. Nobody to fall back on or take up slack for..
By Netbanker
March 1, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
JBM…so Joe/Josephine Q. Citizen can’t file the garnishment papers on their own? That is what I was trying to ask, albeit rather ineptly. In MD anyone with 2 active brain cells could figure out the paperwork and file it. All you really needed was the case number proving a judgement and the employer’s address.
By RF
March 1, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
John- they’re like roaches. If you see one, then there’s like a thousand more hiding in the dark.
By Mara
March 1, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! What can one do with a throw-back like Brett except laugh at him?! He actually believes that “One day her and her ilk will grow old and die a sad and lonely death with nobody to be there for them”? Tee-hee!!! What about our husbands? Are you saying that they’re destined to leave us because we won’t breed? (the husband and I did discuss this, and he’s missing the “parent” gene too, thankfully…) Are our siblings and friends gonna abandon us in our twilight years because we never did breed? And if you don’t like kids in the first place, why would being forced to spend time with the grubby little grandbrats be considered a “benefit”? Dumb-a*! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Why don’t you jump back in that time machine and trundle your way back to the 1940’s when “old maid” was an epithet and not a job description.
By RF
March 1, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
Moose- Visa may not arrest me, but I’d like to think child support is a bit more important than a credit card. Wishful thinking maybe…:)
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
The parent should have to cut back on his/her expenses to be able to afford to continue caring for that child on the same level as always.
And if they have done that yet plus more and are $150 short you believe that the CS should not change.
I understand. You think that the CP is entitled to recieve %23 of the NCP earnings, at time of divorce, for the rest of their life.
And I totally disagree;)
j27 -
Last time I checked no one thinks that losing a job should be a criminal offense. The above statements do not adhere to your belief. Buzzz - Try again
Last time I checked no one had a problem with child support payments being reduced. Again - the above statements oppose your notion that “no one” had a problem with reducing payments. Buzzz - Try again (2nd wrong statement)
we’ve moved on to other facets. Not from the posts that are on my machine - you have a filter I can borrow. I like the color of your glasses. (and btw - Buzzz - Try again (3nd wrong statement. Your out.))
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
Brett, what in tarnation are you talking about? Duh, does staying at home raising kids grow a retirement fund? Does it pay the bills? NO IT DOESN’T. It’s called A metaphor. Are you from SD or Mississippi or something? The “normal traditional family” only existed to some, not all. Back when women couldn’t work or do much of anything except farm children, it was only an illusion of good families. DUH it’s not like this isn’t common knowledge or anything. The biggest difference now is that women don’t have to be mothers if they don’ t want to. I personally think it’s a horrible boring unpaid job to stay at home, clean cook & care for kids all day long. Thank goodness I have that option not to. Working mothers almost guarantee that due to death, husband leaving, forced to leave with the kids due to abuse, she CAN support herself. Why is this a bad thing? You guys should be thankful women do take up the slack due to absent fathers. Shame on you scum for putting down any women that doesn’t want to be a baby making machine.
By Brett
March 1, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
Hey “The72John”:
Why is it every time a conservative says something to you assplug socialist liberal pirates on the left you disagree with, you claim it’s mindless anti-Rush talk (I call you people Rushbots)? Can’t YOU jackasses on the left think for YOURSELVES outside of Rush-hating and outside of what CNN and the New York Times spoon-feeds your arrogant pompous liberal @ss?
Oh and one more thing sport: I dare you to say ONE THING I said that you have EVER heard on Rush. You know you and your pathetic neomarxist ilk on the left can’t STAND the fact that Rush is on the air making MILLIONS slamming you jackasses, and hence, that’s why you Rushbots listen to him. I don’t have time. IDIOT sheeple liberals.
By lozen
March 1, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Brett, what are you doing on here? Is the Limbaugh show over or something? Feminazis! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. I know a lot of women who chose to never have kids and they’re not sad and lonely. They’re travelling the world, playing with all their friends, living better than the women who did the traditional american family bit in many cases. And a lot of those traditional women got left behind for a younger woman, have no retirement benefits, and don’t have anyone to be there for them except their friends! I’m a grandmother and I love seeing my grandchildren when they have time out from all their activities (that’s not very often) and I’m still working for my retirement benefits! Why don’t you talk about something you know a little about? Or listen to the women who have experienced life, not your skewed picture of their lives?
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
WONDERFUL response, RF.
To take it a bit further (‘cause you know I could go on and on with this), if he loses the 42k job, does he get to stop paying rent/mortgage???? Does he get free groceries at Kroger? Free underwear at Dillards? No, sir. He still has OBLIGATIONS. DUTIES. RESPONSIBILITIES.
I think I’ve spoken of my teenaged nephew whose father has been in jail since my nephew was 3-4 months old. Although I still find him irresponsible as a person, and I hate the fact that he hasn’t been there for my nephew’s upbringing, I have to give him credit for doing his very best to support my nephew from prison. He has always - from day one - sent my nephew monthly checks and although they are incredibly insignificant in monetary value the gesture is simply priceless. Not only does he sent his “paychecks” to my nephew, he has also never, EVER missed a birthday, holiday, or significant moment in my nephew’s life.
THIS is what I’m talking about. Some folks would say, well what is he supposed to pay while he’s in jail? I don’t care if the best he can do is a $43 check at the end of the month, it’s better than nothing. AND more importantly, it’s better than a COURT-ORDERED check.
By Brett
March 1, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Hey WhileyCoyote… go back and re-read my post. NOWHERE did I say that working women were BAD. However, I DID say that those that TRASH stay-at-home moms ARE, not the least of which is Terreeeeeza Heinz-Kerry. Now if you can’t decipher the difference, it’s not my fault you are another ignoranus liberal pig.
By Netbanker
March 1, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Looks like Brett missed the WARNING in paragraph 2 that lets one know she’s taking a sarcastic approach to the topic. OIY!!
As for Brokeback Mountain…he obviously didn’t see it if he thinks that it “glorifies the breakup of a traditional family marriage.” I guess Brett thinks it would be best for gay men and lesbians to marry opposite sex partners and lie to them for a lifetime only to get caught like the former Governor of NJ and cause outrageous amounts of pain to many people instead of being allowed to live their life with respect for being honest in the first place.
By The72John
March 1, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
Why are you being beligerent, FM? No one is being beligerent to you. And let’s just examine your “buzzing” of my statements.
1) No, I don’t believe that deadbeat dad’s should be arrested or put in jail. I’ve never said anywhere that I did.
2) I think that if you polled the group, that no one would object to REASONABLE reductions in child support in the face of catastrophic job loses. Even JBM, I suspect, is simply trying to emphasise how strongly she feels. Obviously, a father who can’t house and feed himself won’t be able to contribute additional payments.
3) Sorry if you are unable to get away from your pet argument of the week, but I’m pretty sure that most of us had moved on to discussing WHY we felt that many requests for reduction were not valid.
So…chill out, Moose. Relax.
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
RF,
In my situation, I AM the bread-winner, the one and only support. Nobody to fall back on or take up slack for..
As is mine. 2 daughters and I support them totally. Should thier mother be incarcerated for not being able to contribute? NO WAY.
She has her trials, as do we all, and none of her short-comings are maliciously intended. Do the short-comings effect me and my girls? Absolutly - to a staggering degree. But as it should be - we all make out way BEST we CAN.
Given peoples opinion on here; she should be taken from her parents house and arrested - no questions asked.
By The72John
March 1, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
Brett, possibly if everything you posted weren’t peppered with meaningless insults and ad hominem attacks, you might be taken seriously. It’s not the fact that you’re a conservative, it’s that you are an idiot.
By lozen
March 1, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
I wonder what person posting on here today has been in trouble/jail for not paying child support?
By Jack
March 1, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Brett really stepped in it. A benefit to being a parent is having someone there to pick out your nursing home.
By kimberly
March 1, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Is Mississippi next? A house committee passed a similar bill to the one S. Dakota just passed. It could go to a full house vote next week. How can a woman hold down her job AND spend quality time with her family, when she has to scrape up the means to get herself to another state for a procedure? (BTW, and unwanted pregnancy interferes with BOTH job and family responsibilities.)
By The72John
March 1, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Given peoples opinion on here; she should be taken from her parents house and arrested - no questions asked.
Can anyone please show me what has given FM the impression that everyone here thinks that we should be rounding up all the deadbeats and arresting them?
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
“TRASH stay-at-home moms ARE, not the least of which is Terreeeeeza Heinz-Kerry”
Why do you hate her so much? Why is she trash? I wasn’t aware she was a bad woman.
By Jack
March 1, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
“Brett, possibly if everything you posted weren’t peppered with meaningless insults and ad hominem attacks, you might be taken seriously. It’s not the fact that you’re a conservative, it’s that you are an idiot.”
Pot calling the kettle black?
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
To take it a bit further (‘cause you know I could go on and on with this), if he loses the 42k job, does he get to stop paying rent/mortgage???? Does he get free groceries at Kroger? Free underwear at Dillards? No, sir. He still has OBLIGATIONS. DUTIES. RESPONSIBILITIES.
And none of that will get you in jail.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
And if they have done that yet plus more and are $150 short you believe that the CS should not change.
If that is directed at me, it’s quite an assumptive statement, since I don’t recall stating what I believe or don’t believe about when CS should be adjusted.
However, I do believe, as I stated, that if a person lost his/her $42k job and took on a $28k job, he/she can still afford to make his/her CS payments, even if that means he has to cut back in other areas.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
Lozen, that’s funny b/c I was thinking the same thing.
John, don’t give yourself the headache. No one will be able to show you that.
By Mara
March 1, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
Whiley, don’t you know that to people like the Brett-troll, the only (and I do mean only!) thing a decent woman should want to do is to service her man anyway he sees fit? After all, what kind of woman would you have to be not to feel fulfilled with the roles of whore, breeder, nanny, laundress, maid, cook, and general dogsbody? What does a good woman need with a job outside of the home. Her dear husband would give her money, if she asked (and could tell him what she’s gonna waste it on now…)
Why would anyone pass up the chance to serve a good man like Brett? Why, I ask you?!
(/snark)
By The72John
March 1, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
Now Jack, you know I only go off on people who go off on me in some way first.
By lozen
March 1, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
Brett sounds like that dark, out-of-control side of … dare I say it, well that demon person. Yeah, let’s talk about stay at home moms Brett. My mother was one of those. She was a miserable, unsatisfied person who lived in her fantasy world and ignored her kids as much as possible. She never had a chance to get an education, or explore who she was and what she wanted before she was married. She married a man 20 years older than she. Her marriage did not make her happy as time went by, but she had to stay in it because she had no job skills and no self confidence. Women of that generation didn’t have the choices women have now and we women of today are very, very grateful to the “feminazis” you refer to. The world has changed whether you like it or not.
By Mara
March 1, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
lozen, well put. Extremely well put.
By Lyrazel
March 1, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Brett said: Diane is the epitome of the pseudo-intellect femenazis who chose to be bigshot workers and never settle down with kids. One day her and her ilk will grow old and die a sad and lonely death with nobody to be there for them
Actually life is fun WITHOUT kids also. If you dont have the $$$ to bring them into the world maybe its a moral responsibility to your uncreated child NOT to bring it to a word and take BC. Brett, you sound very jealous of women who make a large salary and stay away from the assumed traditional role of domesticated bliss-world by calling us femenazis—
Do me a favor Brett before being hyper-critical of women who choose not to have children: Think about: how many unwanted/unnecessary children are starving in the world? Think about: how many parents do not have the intelligence to bathe but breed? Think about: the last time you spoke about welfare queens Think about the last time you were in a shelter for abused women—count their kids women should keep their legs shut if her kids have 3 different daddies ever say that? Is this responsible parenting/breeding/child-rearing? No, and of course no. Think about: the welfare of the child as opposed to selfish desires to reproduce irresponsibly.
Brett you cannot expect that children will share grandchildren in elder years or even want to be around you. The loneliness you describe can happen for them who have kids as well. Sorry you are so bitter against intelligent successful women. Life has no guarantees Brett. I will agree on one point: Diane seems at times to be very isolated in her ivory tower of liberal idealism.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Oh, if I had seen your 1:15 John, I wouldn’t have commented any further. Well said.
On another note, I really think some people find pleasure in picking apart statements for the sake of starting an argument or stirring up a discussion. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but it can be a bit annoying, and it gets old, fast.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
Brett has gotten way too much attention. Moving right along…
By Jack
March 1, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
I know John. I had to say it.
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
lol Mara ! We all know what the real deal is & we still get pulled in by the trolls lol. I should know better. We all just need to remember that it will take a few more generations for the fetus loving wife beaters to die off. Maybe a few of them will survive & end up in zoos where audiences will be mesmerized by their rantings (behind glass walls of course for the public’s protection)
By RF
March 1, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Moose- I don’t think anyone has said that. In your case, like mine, you agreed to live without it. That’s fine, and I definitely take my hat off to you for raising two daughters. I don’t think I’d be nearly as able to raise girls!!
Therein lies the difference. You know you can’t expect the mother to help, and as I said earlier, I think CP dads are more likely to accept the fact and move on. In many cases, the CP(be it mom or dad) needs, and I believe deserves the help, and maybe fear of garnishment and jail will help keep it coming. I’m not advocating jail in every situation, but if the NCP isn’t paying SOMETHING on a regular basis, and can pay it, then they should be forced to do so.
The problem comes down to one of communication. I think two adults ought to be able to discuss the situation and come to agreeable terms without the courts. Unfortunately, if one decides not to, there isn’t always a lot of recourse. Do you think a non-assisting NCP should have legal visitations if it’s not agreed by both sides that the NCP is non-supportive?
By Jack
March 1, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
Teresa made her money the old fashioned way. She married it, killed him off and got a younger model.
By The72John
March 1, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Why Jack, you ole…! ;-)
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
I’m putting myself in time-out. BBL.
By Zack
March 1, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
I reiterate from yesterday: If you’re someone who thinks finding a consensus is worth everything, you’re embracing a bi-product of moral relativism. Truth is truth; truth is NOT what we make it out to be.
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
On another note, I really think some people find pleasure in picking apart statements for the sake of starting an argument or stirring up a discussion. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but it can be a bit annoying, and it gets old, fast.
Left handed way of saying the details (that IS what is meant by case-by-case basis) do not matter to you and it annoys you that they do ultimately MATTER. (I liked it when you were ignoring me much better;)
By Archie
March 1, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Most of Regina’s comments that I read yesterday were reasonable. People will certainly disagree but I thought it was good to hear a different perspective.
“And they cannon arrest you for it either (it is a civil matter, not criminal) - and they would not if they could bc then they would NEVER get money. They know it does not serve anyones purpose - as does the gvmt, hence why debt is not criminal”
I agree with that statement FatMoose as a person who is dealing with debt. JBM, I don’t know if a person that has a 14,000 dollar decrease in income can do the same things as he/she did before. I think if we stop being emotional and more practical we can do better with this who-pays-what-issue.
By RF
March 1, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It’s always what we ‘make it out to be’. The difference is that some people secure enough in themselves to think for themselves without seeking mass justification in the guise of ‘religion’. Nothing wrong with that Zack, but it doesn’t entitle you to look down on those who don’t buy into what the herd says. Baaa, baaa!!
JBM- I think I need one too. About four days would be nice…
By Zack
March 1, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
Whiley—What’s next? Are you going to come on here again with your same rhetoric, trying to say a fetus isn’t a human and that I’m a woman-hater? Please. You can lie through your teeth and type all the sensationalism you’d like, but don’t expect me to respect you in the process.
Lozen is the same way, and she’s unfortunately not the only one on here like you.
Oh, yeah, don’t put words in my mouth. When I spoke of divorce recently, I was talking about how unfair it was that women automatically got child custody and then alimony. Why should the woman always get child custody? Don’t tell me her enduring childbirth entitles her this privilege. Are you in favor of women losing child custody and paying their ex-husbands alimony? Are you? If not, why not? Why do you think women deserve special privileges? Why do you constantly trip over your own “logic”? I’ll tell you why. It’s because the kind of “logic” you use is illogical and inconsistent and therefore deserves the quotation marks I gave it.
By Brian Curtis
March 1, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
Zack: Quite right… and your opinion is not truth.
The sooner you figure that out, the happier you’ll be.
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
I think the obvious conclusion here is that IF a woman chooses to give birth, she needs to cover her own AZZ. Count on the fact that she’s going to be doing most all the child duties & house cleaning. She’s going to have to figure out a way to continue or grow a strong career so if & when a divorce happens, more than likely without any or little child support, she’ll be able to survive. She’s going to have to put aside as much money as possible in case she and/or her children are in danger of abuse. That money will make a safer exit possible.
Some are lucky to have stable relationships with equal partners, or in cases of divorce, an involved father & everyone gets along. Those situations do exist. Unfortunately that is far from the norm. No matter how often or loud women speak out nothing is going to change. Mom’s end up doing most all the childrearing & domestic duties. So IF you choose to give birth, unfortunately you must look after yourself no matter what anybody says. Don’t stop trying to reach those that aren’t listening, but don’t count on anything changing.
Heck even if you choose never to have children, you’ve got to make & have your own money. Otherwise you open yourself up to big time trouble.
By Mara
March 1, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
“Bi-product” Zack? BI-product? LOL! Perhaps what you meant was BY-product…. (snicker)
The problem with your “truth” comment is that way too many people get their opinions confused with the truth. Especially when it comes to social issues.
And as for the truth being the truth, if you’ve ever watched Scotty McClellan spin for Bush, you’d know that there’s the “truth”, and then there’s the TRUTH.
By The72John
March 1, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
Perhaps if we had a little more moral relativism in the world we’d have fewer people killing each other.
By Jack
March 1, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Don’t mess with Whiley Nimrod.
By RF
March 1, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
John- no we wouldn’t, we’d have more sexually repressed religiophytes running around about to bust wide open who would eventually snap…oh wait, that’s what happened already!!
By RF
March 1, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
John- what I meant to say was ‘if we had more absolute morality’… been a long, long day!
Mara- that was a Freudian slip from Zack. He doesn’t realize that if he were a little busier making some bi-products, he might just be happy. God forbid it!
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
Do you think a non-assisting NCP should have legal visitations if it’s not agreed by both sides that the NCP is non-supportive?
Absolutly. Unless there is destructive behavior involved - a parents presence is MUCH MORE important than $$$.
I think if we stop being emotional and more practical we can do better with this who-pays-what-issue. Bingo - Thank you Archie. These things, even CS issues, are just reasons for people to argue MORE after a divorce and vent. Who will argue that even IF a NCP is not giving any $$ they cannot contribute in MANY more important ways.
Otherwise, the suggestion of going to Big Brother would be nonsense - for he is not offering $$$.
By Chilao
March 1, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
that was a Freudian slip from Zack
I wasn’t going to say it, I wasn’t going to say it. LOL
By lozen
March 1, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
A fetus is a blob of tissue and is not a human. You are a woman hater if you believe every woman should be forced to give birth when she can’t/isn’t ready to be/does not want to be a mother. (Sorry Whiley, I couldn’t wait for you!) What you think is “truth” is nothing but your opinion. If you don’t have any respect for Whiley I’m sure she’s really broken up about that. NOT!
By RF
March 1, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
Agree to disagree with you FM. I guess I’m not as forgiving as you are. A parent is a parent, and can be a good, necessary influence on a child. You said yourself that your ex caused you and the girls all manner of grief. I just can’t see how that person can be a good influence. To me, if the NCP can’t help, at least once in a while, with the financial burden of raising the kids, then why should he/she be allowed to show up and take them to the movies or Six Flags? I just can’t see how a NCP couldn’t want to help financially in SOME way. Unless there’s a disability that keeps one from working, I can’t see how that person wouldn’t be able to offer a little, even if it’s $20 out of a paycheck. The gesture is what’s important I guess. It shows a dedication to the child that a social visit just doesn’t.
Does your girls’ mom spend any time with them?
By RF
March 1, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
yeah, Chilao, but you were thinking it!!
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
lol !
By lozen
March 1, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
RF, this is great: “sexually repressed religiophytes running around about to bust wide open who would eventually snap…oh wait, that’s what happened already!!”
By Chilao
March 1, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
RF- first thought, yes. But then I thought maybe he was BiPolar or something. LOL
By Regina
March 1, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
lozen, Not every divorced woman was left for a younger woman. Most divorces are initiated by women and most of them cite discontent as the reason for the divorce. Divorce is basically slavery for a man.
By Regina
March 1, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Whiley, If marriage and parenting is slavery to women, why do so many women want to get married? So, they can be taken care of and if not, then, definitely in the divorce!
By Regina
March 1, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
With the unfair child support and child custody guidelines, no wonder many men go to this website, www.nomarriage.com
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
To me, if the NCP can’t help, at least once in a while, with the financial burden of raising the kids, then why should he/she be allowed to show up and take them to the movies or Six Flags?
The issue I have with the divorce scenerio is that there is still a relationship is most cases to be had - but it degenerates into an “everything must be fair” fight; and we ALL know that is not the case in relationships ever. Everyone does what they can should be the premise.
I just can’t see how a NCP couldn’t want to help financially in SOME way.
And for those people that do not WANT to help in some way - I agree that CS only is the resort and if that is not paid - they go to jail. But the t**/tat fight is just anger being administered to slam someone.
It shows a dedication to the child that a social visit just doesn’t. I would say the social visits and modelling win over $ everytime - and if you asked my daughters they would agree.
More-over, there would be great damage done to them if they did not have a relationship with their mother.
But lets see what the polls say…
Who on here think I should not longer let my daughters see their mother bc she does not provide ANY $ support? (Background info - I was the stay at home dad during the relationship. I have no degree and went back to work AFTER the divorce. The court awarded me $150x2 for CS bc I made less than her at divorce {yes - 300 for two kids. And do you hear me screaming?nope.}. I got the first 3 payments and then a call to explain she cannot make anymore until she gets another job. She is now living with her parents. The $ that she did, and was going to continue to, pay was going into a college fund. We three scrape by, but live, with occasional help from one of my brothers. Thier mother, although bad with money and some serious emotional issues, is a stable force in their life.)
By The72John
March 1, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
*By Regina
March 1, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
lozen, Not every divorced woman was left for a younger woman. Most divorces are initiated by women and most of them cite discontent as the reason for the divorce. Divorce is basically slavery for a man.
By Regina
March 1, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Whiley, If marriage and parenting is slavery to women, why do so many women want to get married? So, they can be taken care of and if not, then, definitely in the divorce!
By Regina
March 1, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
With the unfair child support and child custody guidelines, no wonder many men go to this website, www.nomarriage.com*
Ok…Regina is getting absolutely ridiculous…she reminds me of a Stepford Wife now.
The poor men are abused by the evil women!
By lozen
March 1, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
I remember a study done when I was in school where the researchers paid families not to turn on the tv. A few days would go by and the family would be in uproar with everybody fighting with everybody. Soon the tv would be back on (forget the darn money!) and peace would return to the family. I do question the workability of the “sacred” traditional american family. The “traditional american family” with mom/dad/2.4 children did not exist before the industrial revolution; the family included all members of the extended family up until then. (Could it be that libruls are just people who have studied history and anthropology and sociology and know something about where all these “sacred cows” come from?) I certainly don’t believe it has been good for many women, and that belief comes from talking to women and living it myself in the past.
By Archie
March 1, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
FatMoose I think the mother should see her children.
By RF
March 1, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
Regina- actually if I’m reading the stats right, “irreconcilable differences” is used as the most common reason for divorce. Women filing most often file for “breach of the marriage contract” or “infidelity”. Men rarely have to file for infidelity, and most often use irreconcilable differences as Legalese for “I’ve found a younger one who manages to get me going without the Viagra”. Also, most divorces not involving infidelity are mutually agreed upon, even if the terms of support/alimony may be argued. Checks your facts carefully.
By Mara
March 1, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Regina, women get married for the same reason men do. Love, companionship, and possible pro-creation. I’m sure that when $$$ are involved, it probably is a bit more business-like, but since maybe 5% of the population falls into the “pre-nup” taxbracket, that shouldn’t really be a factor. They say love is blind and often “love” blinds us to the faults of our amore. Many times, once the vows are said and the new wears off, you find out that you bought yourself a pig-in-a-poke.
By lozen
March 1, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Most divorces are initiated by women and most of them cite discontent as the reason for the divorce. May I ask when you did your study on this? How many divorces did you investigate? Just in Georgia or in other states also?
Divorce is basically slavery for a man. You are over the top Reggie.
By RF
March 1, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
Moose- you’re the exception, not the rule bud. She must have some serious issues, bordering on disability if she can’t pay 300. That said, as long as she is being a positive influence and role model, go for it. I said earlier: The problem comes down to one of communication. I think two adults ought to be able to discuss the situation and come to agreeable terms without the courts. Unfortunately, if one decides not to, there isn’t always a lot of recourse… Your situation works for you and I’m glad. How many NCP’s have justifiable reasons and bother to share them with the CP? That’s the crux here- communication. I’m glad you have it and can make it all work. It takes a lot of resolve and diligence to be a single parent doesn’t it?
By Netbanker
March 1, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
It’s rather rude and comes across as arrogant to ask someone why and then immediately follow with “I’ll tell you why….”
By Justin
March 1, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
RF, Most women do not file for infidelity anymore. Women cheat almost as much as men. They are just sneaky and don’t leave as much of a trail. Most divorces not involving infidelity don’t mutually agree on the support/alimony. The men are forced to settle due to threats of having to pay the woman’s court fees and to be in litigation for years.
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Archie,
(I knew your position - as well as what others would be if they answered in accordance with their positions so far)
I think that the people on here will either change thier position OR they will refuse to respond.
Funny how our convictions radically change once we are not talking simpley about theoretical situations that are infused by our own anger derived from a personal situation…
Lets see if the other responses do pour in and show me wrong.
By Regina
March 1, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
Oh poo! I am not a Stepford wife! Divorce is slavery for a man, if not slavery at least indentured servitude.
Women need to stop pretending they are so innocent. I know many men whose wives have cheated and still gained the upper hand in the divorce.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
On another note, I really think some people find pleasure in picking apart statements for the sake of starting an argument or stirring up a discussion. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but it can be a bit annoying, and it gets old, fast.
Is there anyone intelligent here who can explain to me how the following comment might be an accurate interpretation of the previous one????? As usual, I have no idea what dude is saying…
Left handed way of saying the details (that IS what is meant by case-by-case basis) do not matter to you and it annoys you that they do ultimately MATTER.
I don’t know if there was a single person in here, even the less intelligent ones, who disagreed that each case is to be judged individually. (Guys/Ladies, please correct me if I’m wrong, but nobody disagrees with that, right?). Okay, so we all agree that each case is different… but, of course, that’s way too boring and leaves no room for rambling, so I guess somebody has to jump in there with some drama to make it an excitable conversation. I can understand that.
By Regina
March 1, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
Mara, A man doesn’t have to be rich in order to have things taken from him. All men should have a pre-nup just as all women should have one.
By Regina
March 1, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
The72John, What is ridiculous is family court in Georgia!
By RF
March 1, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Moose- a little background for me(you’ve probably read it before). My sister and her ‘husband’ were crack addicts who neglected their kids. After taking the kids away, their drug habit only worsened. I tend to have little sympathy for NCP because of that background. I COULDN’T allow visits with ‘parents’ who were stoned off their butts on crack, alcohol, etc. It was a matter of safety and the judge’s orders for me. I’m glad you can work it out with the mom, but realize many times it can’t work, and it isn’t just “t** for tat”.
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
How many NCP’s have justifiable reasons and bother to share them with the CP? The issue is “justifiable.” Some people are better at nurturing than breadwinning - it does not all even out “fairly.”
She must have some serious issues, bordering on disability if she can’t pay 300. Nope - she can barely make her car payment + other debts.
That’s the crux here- communication. I’m glad you have it and can make it all work. It takes a lot of resolve and diligence to be a single parent doesn’t it?
Precisely. And, no, it is not fair - but what is?
By RF
March 1, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Justin- I never women were so vile and cold-hearted. How ever do you tolerate them?? Could be why I switched teams, don’t know.
By lozen
March 1, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Well, Reggie I can tell you why I got married. Nobody had ever once told me I had any alternative. I was never told it was important to discover who I was, what I wanted from life, how I could contribute to the world, what work I might enjoy. I was told by everyone and everything that I was nothing without a man. I started writing in notebooks “Mrs. Billy Smith,” “Mrs John Jones,” when I was 13! I had one or two single teachers and we called them “old maids.” People started asking me if I had a little boyfriend when I was four years old! I read fairy tales and books written for teenage girls with one theme, Someday your prince will come and your life will begin. then you will live happily ever after. Why do women want to get married? Because we live in a culture than tells little girls every day about romantic love (it will last forever and you will live happily ever after), engagement rings, white gowns, little cottages with picket fences, etc. etc.
By Netbanker
March 1, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
FM…it’s up to you to determine the amount of time your children’s mother spends with them regardless of her ability to pay CS. I don’t think an inability to pay is grounds for refusal. That said, your statement that she has “some serious emotional issues” would be the red flag for me to consider their time together.
Is it that men rarely file for divorce using infidelity as the reason because it’s a threat to their manhood that they’ve been cuckholded? Are they afraid it will be viewed as ‘couldn’t satisfy the wife in bed?’
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
Regina, women still believe that it is possible to be in a loving equal relationship. We all know of a few couples in our lives that have found it. There is nothing wrong with wanting & striving for that.
Sure, that goes both ways, I think men want the fairy tale too. Unfortunately in their fairy tales they are allowed to have multiple partners, they’re all stepford wives, & they never get old or gain weight. lol !
Divorce is slavery for men?? lol Try being a married stay at home mother.
By Jack
March 1, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
I would be insulted if I had to sign a pre-nup wether male or female.
Trying to figure out what side Regina is on.
By The72John
March 1, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
Yes, Regina, that’s exactly what a Stepford Wife would say.
Interested to hear your response to the debunking of your false statistics about divorce.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Well, to wrap this up, and to make sure my comments are really, really clear to everyone (2nd grade and up, that is), here’s where I stand:
Every human being who participates in conceiving a child willingly should bear at least 50% of the responsibility in caring for that child.
The abovementioned point is not contingent on ones employability, education, or any other life situations. Just as NCPs continue to hunger after losing a job, their children do too.
While I understand why some parents would make visitation contingent upon CS payments, I do not agree that this is ultimately beneficial for the child(ren).
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE (other than severely debilitating mental illness or other incapacitation, if that’s a word… lol) for an NCP not financially contributing to the caretaking of his/her child.
Now, if I’ve said something different up there ^^^, someone please show me so I can clarify and/or correct.
If you disagree with my stance, that’s great! That’s what makes the world go ‘round, and you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. Just don’t try to exalt yourself for having a different opinion from me. I stand by everything I said, and I doubt that anyone I think is unintelligent can change my mind. (Note, I said anyone that I think is unintelligent. That means, in my opinion…).
I just think it’s so ignorant to knock someone because of their beliefs, convictions or opinions. So what we disagree? Big deal. Aren’t we all old enough to just disagree and enjoy the conversation? Geez. Personally, I love it when folks like John and Archie and NetBanker and RF and Renee and BlaBlaBla, Chilao, Sanhan, and others disagree with me. I learn so much from them. They present their opinions in rational, reasonable and well-thought out fashion, and I learn from them. In the end, we may still disagree, but we’ve heard each other out, and no one is being a jerk about it.
By RF
March 1, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
As I said, Moose, agree to disagree… although I find it hard to believe that a reasonably stable influence on your kids can’t even make a car note. I could flip burgers at McDonald’s and do that. But, kudos to you for figuring a way to make it work.
JBM- intelligent??? Dang, but you expect a lot from people!!— LOL
Gotta run for doctor’s appt. Have a good evening all!!
By The72John
March 1, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
Regina is either a lobbyist or a brain-washed advocate. She keeps peppering her incredibly anti-women rhetoric with occasional statements that are supposed to trick you into thinking she’s an independent woman, but really she’s not.
She’s not really good at it, either.
By RF
March 1, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
John- I’m interpreting for Regina here….”does not compute, does not compute” as the denial circuits go into overload!! LOL Careful, or her hubby may have to have her ‘reprogrammed’.
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
JBM, Please - as you state - just ignore me.
I know you do not understand what I post - and that is ok.
And what you want is not an intelligent person here who can explain to me how the following comment might be an accurate interpretation of the previous one????? As usual, I have no idea what dude is saying… You want someone that can simplify it for you: You stated you have an issue with picking apart statements although those are the “details” that make it an action of looking at issues on a “case-by-case” basis; therefore if you do not want to deal with the “details” - you DO NOT look at these “case-by-case.”
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Archie:
JBM, I don’t know if a person that has a 14,000 dollar decrease in income can do the same things as he/she did before. I think if we stop being emotional and more practical we can do better with this who-pays-what-issue.
You’re right. A person with a $14K decrease in income would probably have to eliminate his car payment, cable, high-speed internet, gym membership, cut back on club dues, church offerings, haircuts, shopping, etc… but, he’d still have to pay his rent, his student loans, his Visa bill, and his CHILD SUPPORT. Because his children will still get hungry whether he gets a paycut or not.
My point is that while it may be difficult to maintain those payments, it is certainly possible, IF he/she considers it a priority, which unfortunately, many NCPs don’t.
When I moved to Georgia, I was out of work for over a year. When I finally accepted a job offer, it was for HALF of what I was making before (e.g. $100K to $50K or $200K to $100K, etc.). No matter what, I still had bills to pay. And guess what else? I still woke up ready to eat every morning.
Every time I don’t feel like going to work, or feel like telling a client to shove it, or feel like walking out and never coming back… I think about my child. I have a child to care for that prevents me from being able to quit, or even act a fool and get fired. She keeps me motivated to bust my behind so that if there ever were layoffs, I would be less likely to be first to go. She is my priority, and whether I’m earning $100K or $10K, as the custodial parent, I’m going to do everything in my power to make sure she eats.
My point all along has been that this is the same passion and commitment NCPs need to have. PERIOD.
By Netbanker
March 1, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
I never women were so vile and cold-hearted. How ever do you tolerate them?? Could be why I switched teams, don’t know. I’m not so sure that guys are a whole lot better, RF.
By lozen
March 1, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Does not compute is right guys!
By Regina
March 1, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
My husband is very happy with me as I am with him. And, I am not programmed.
lozen, I didn’t believe in the fairy tales because the women in the books didn’t look like me. I had the long hair but mine was darker. I had the lovely skin but mine was darker. Maybe that is why I am more independent than most women. I received a more realistic view of the world and knew it was more important to work with my husband than against him.
By Chilao
March 1, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
JBM - could you translate that 3:30 post of yours? LOL
I think Regina is a guy. and that can be a guy’s name as well anyway.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
FM, as for your 3:50: Cool, dude. Whatever you say. You’re entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.
By Jack
March 1, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Is Regina married?
By Regina
March 1, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
Just being me,
No one said that anyone should stop paying child support in the case of a layoff. What many of us are saying the child support should reflect the decrease in pay. If a man is unemployed and only receiving his unemployment pay, it is impossible for him to make a $1200 monthly child support. If he goes back for a modification, most judges refuse. In an intact family, the entire family would have to adjust. However, in a divorced family, a man goes to jail because they try to squeeze blood from a turnip!
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
And, let’s be mindful that today (and many days before today) you addressed me, not the other way around. I’ve been ignoring you for weeks. You’re the one who keeps addressing me by responding to things that I’m saying to other people.
If you like for me to ignore you, then why would you address me? Is it ~gasp~ to get attention?!!!! Is that what all the “Look everybody, I have a question,” “Look everybody, what do you think of MY situation,” is all about??? Is that why you go out of your way to rearrange people’s statements?!!!! Is that why you take issue with just about everything that is said, unless it specifically agrees with something you said???
Dude, you have issues.
By Chilao
March 1, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this
(e.g. $100K to $50K or $200K to $100K, etc.).
Thanks for the math lesson, it was only my most fave high school subject. I jest, (about the flippant ‘thanks’).
on this family topic thing, and this is perhaps mere speculation on my part, but I have been speculating that others who do the same work I do here may be paid abit more, not because they are worth more, but because they have many more mouths to feed. Just a theory on my end, and short of hacking into the payroll system, may never know, but. About to get it all squared away in April so we will see.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this
Chilao, there’s no translating it. It’s just meaningless gibberish that doesn’t make sense…
By Netbanker
March 1, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
Shoot, JBM, I think I misunderstood the rules of engagement. From now on I’ll try to be more beligerent in my disagreement and no more rational/reasonable for me! This is ideological warfare not an instructive conversation or exchange of ideas, right?
By Regina
March 1, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
I guess if I acted like a victim then you guys wouldn’t doubt my gender. Being a woman who refuses to hear some excuses women give makes me less of one? Excuse me because I want to see all good parents treated equally and equitable. My ancestors suffered through the Black Holocaust (Slavery) and the Jewish Holocaust, so excuse me if I don’t feel sorry for some housewife because she went to college to get her MRS degree and is now getting divorced.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Regina, I know exactly what you are saying. And, I still disagree.
GOOD GOD, IS IT A FRIGGIN CRIME TO DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE?????????????????????????????? Do I have to agree with you? Well, I don’t. Okay? I disagree.
I believe that first off, child support shouldn’t be court ordered anyway. It should be the NCP’s pleasure to take care of his/her offspring. Secondly, if it is court-ordered, it shouldn’t fluctuate based on what the NCP is earning. The NCP should do whatever he/she has to do to maintain the child’s standard of living. If that means that when he/she loses his/her $42K job and takes on another one that only pays $28, he has to get a second job at the mall or McDonalds, then SO BE IT. Why should the child suffer because Mommy or Daddy lost their job? Why can’t Mommy or Daddy be the adult and go get another job that would enable him or her to continue taking care of the child just as he/she always did?????
You don’t have to agree with me. Just don’t try to make me agree with you because I don’t. Got it? Good.
By Chilao
March 1, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
surprise surprise, I was wrong. Husband?. LOL
engagement rings, white gowns, little cottages with picket fences, etc. etc.
don’t forget the never have to work again and have the hubby make all the decisions. I have actually known women in their 40/s, now divorced, who had the view they were so attractive they should never have to work. Kinda a rude awakening when they got divorced and now work two jobs.
By Regina
March 1, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
Jack, Please see post, March 1, 2006 03:58 PM
By blablabla
March 1, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
lozen,
you asked what i was talking about in your last post where i responded to you. it’s quite simple - you accuse zack and others (rightly or wrongly) of stating their opinions as fact. this may come as a shock to you, but you do the exact same thing.
1) Life begins at birth.
you said this yesterday - i pointed out to you that this is an opinion. life beginning at birth is not a concluded scientific fact, regardless of your belief.
as an aside, you wondered aloud as to why we don’t celebrate birthdays three months after the child is born if life begins at conception. the obvious answer is that we’re celebrating the anniversary of birth, not conception. celebrating a day some three months after the child’s birth would be celebrating the anniversary of its conception, if you could in fact pin down the exact day. i would think this answer is obvious, but since you asked, i guess not. hopefully now you get it.
2) A fetus is a blob of tissue and is not a human.
you said this today, just a short while ago. this is another opinion and certainly not scientific fact.
3) Fetuses don’t have rights that override those of a living, breathing mother/woman.
you inferred this in your post to me. you trumpet this as a fact, yet it is not. i can will assets to my unborn child that would have gone to my wife, the mother if the fetus/child didn’t exist. if i die prior to the birth of the child, my wife doesn’t get those assets, the fetus does when it is born. in that instance, the fetus does have rights, and its rights do in fact supercede the property rights of my wife, the child’s mother. to make a broad statement to the contrary is not only your opinion, but it’s also untrue according to our laws.
so you see, my probem with your comments is that you accuse others of doing something that you do.
furthermore, irrespective of whether or not an embryo, zygote or fetus could be called a parasite under the scientific definition of the word, i find it personally disturbing that a mother (let alone anybody) would refer to their (or someone else’s) unborn as parasites.
do you refer to beggars in the street as parasites, since they are living largely off of the people who give them money, food or clothes? how about people who collect welfare - are they parasites in your mind?
i highly doubt you have the cojones to call the people in my examples parasites, even though you might personally “define” them as such. so you strike me as the type of person who likes to talk tough against those who can’t fight back.
you wanted to know what i was talking about - there you have it.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
This is ideological warfare not an instructive conversation or exchange of ideas, right?
Nail on the head, as always.
By Julia
March 1, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Sorry it took so long to respond. (Busy at work today.) I just want to say thank you to Just Being Me, Netbanker and RF for your comments earlier about my son.
I’ve told him that I’m going to find him the BEST daddy in the world and that makes him very happy. He is in fact one of the happiest kids you’ll ever meet. (He’s always smiling and loves to tell jokes.)
I really appreciate the encouragement. (More than you know.)
By The72John
March 1, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
No Regina, it’s because you argue from absolutes and base all of your arguments on stereotypes and rather dubious assumptions. Women are money-grubbing manipulators and men are innocent victims of their wiles, that kind of thing.
It makes everything you post ring false. You don’t sound like a real person - you sound like a lobbying squad.
By kimberly
March 1, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
Not all of us are vile and cold-hearted! (Eyes wide, brimming with tears, lower lip trembling.) I’m totally SWEEEET, which is why men take me forgranted and don’t treat me right. (sniff sniff, tremble)
Julia, did you just say you told your son that you’re going to find him the best daddy in the world? Um….. HUH? Seriously. You SAID that?
By Regina
March 1, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
JBM, I don’t mean to come across so strong and agree with you that we don’t have to agree on things. I agree with you that child support should not be court ordered. I don’t agree with you that if it is court-ordered it shouldn’t be based on income and sometimes that changes due to factors beyond someone’s control such as layoffs, disability, medical issues, etc.
By Regina
March 1, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
The72John, I didn’t say all but you guys act as if all women are angels and that isn’t true. Nor, are all men behaving badly.
It just seems in divorces, many women do change and focus totally on the money.
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
Regina we question your gender (or level of abuse you’ve had) based on the fact you don’t LISTEN. You don’t acknowledge what most all women have to deal with. No matter how bad it is & how loud we scream.
bla blah, do you pay for all the unwanted foster kids in your state? (I don’t expect an answer of course, fetus lovers never respond)
By Julia
March 1, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, what’s the problem with my statement to my son? (Just curious.) What difference does that make to you?
By Julia
March 1, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
blablabla-I couldn’t agree with you MORE!
(Sounds like a double standard.)
By kimberly
March 1, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
I’m a single mom too, and have been since the diaper days. I too had that wish, but was never able to deliver. I’m must wondering if you have a plan to deliver on that, if it’s working, and if so, will you share? BTW, if you’re young, you’d better HURRY. Men only find the kids adorable when they’re little, and for the most part, only find WOMEN adorable when we’re young.
By Regina
March 1, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this
Whiley, most people deal with hardships. However, many take care of themselves and don’t whine for others to do so.
By Regina
March 1, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
Whiley, Can I ask you a question? If the father wanted the mother to continue the pregnancy, agreeing to raise the child alone and pay all costs, why wouldn’t she give him that choice?
By Regina
March 1, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
Whiley, you talk about me but you sound just like a anti-male advocate. Are you sure you aren’t a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood or NOW?
By blablabla
March 1, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
whiley,
here i am whiley. i live in atlanta. i don’t pay to take care of someone else’s kids any more than what the state takes from me in taxes and directs to children that it cares for.
and if you could even come close to debating rationally, you might find your response rate a little higher on the blog. i’m on record several times over as being pro-choice, so calling me a “fetus lover” for pointing out the opinions being trumpeted as fact in lozen’s statements is pretty ridiculous. but i would expect no less from someone that resorts to calling people “fetus lovers” or “sexists” if they disagree with you.
why don’t you take your medication, calm down, read what i wrote, and then try to have a rational, adult-like conversation? do you think you could try that?
…waiting for the exclamation points and reams of upper-case type…
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
It just seems in divorces, many women do change and focus totally on the money.
I don’t think it’s so absolutely gender-based. I think it’s usually the person who was burned that focuses on money and other unreasonable demands. Generally, it’s the partner who was cheated on, abused, or otherwise mistreated that becomes so bitter and adamantly focused on taking him/her to the cleaners.
See how I did that? I just disagreed with you, explained why I disagreed, and left it at that. I didn’t call names, or get nasty, I just disagreed. This could lead to a civil, and enlightening discussion…
By Regina
March 1, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
Whew, I am so blessed to have had positive men in my life! The women here have been through the ringer or just think they have. Thank you Hubby, Dad, Granddads, Uncles, cousins and friends!
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
Regina, Chuck, Zack, you probably need to find the “Men to Men” blog.
By The72John
March 1, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
Actually Whiley, that sounds pretty interesting…
You did say Man-on-man, right?
By Nikita
March 1, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
On Regina, I’m voting lobbyist. Or false third-party endorser.
As for women, men, chilluns, etc., I am a liberal who believes in taking responsibility for your life. Responsibility means having children when you can afford them and being devoted to them for life, which means providing for their needs until such time as they are able to provide for themselves. In other words, I don’t find the second wife + kids argument even vaguely convincing. I will buy that child support laws are inflexible, less than optimal, etc. — but I will never buy the notion that a person who CHOOSES to bring a child into this world becomes less responsible for it by CHOOSING a second time to have a child.
By blablabla
March 1, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
You did say Man-on-man, right?
somehow i don’t see chuck, randy and zack on that blog, john. lol.
By Julia
March 1, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, I guess that’s your way of telling me I have no hope in finding a man to love both me and my son. Thanks.
On that bright note I’m going to go pick up my son and go home. Have a good one everyone!
By Nikita
March 1, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
On Regina, I’m voting lobbyist. Or false third-party endorser.
As for women, men, chilluns, etc., I am a liberal who believes in taking responsibility for your life. Responsibility means having children when you can afford them and being devoted to them for life, which means providing for their needs until such time as they are able to provide for themselves. In other words, I don’t find the second wife + kids argument even vaguely convincing. I will buy that child support laws are inflexible, less than optimal, etc. — but I will never buy the notion that a person who CHOOSES to bring a child into this world becomes less responsible for it by CHOOSING to have a second child with an entirely different woman.
By Just Being Me
March 1, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
LOL John!!! ~slap on the hand~
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Regina, maybe she doesn’t want to physically go through a pregnancy. SHE’S the one that will have to suffer the vomiting,(risking her job due to the fact you can’t work very well when you are throwing up all the time) hemorrhoids, weight gain, permanent stretch marks, frequent Dr. visits, unable to get around as easy in the later months, unable to eat certain foods, possibly developing diabetes or other pregnancy related dangers, threat of death, labor pains, v**** tearing, bleeding to death, brain aneurysms, Shall I continue?
If she’s willing to do that, fine for the both of them.
By Whiley
March 1, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
LOL 72 JOHN where is the man on man blog??, I am so there !
By Chilao
March 1, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this
Julia - as someone who has not only been a step-dad in the past AND now would only date a woman who has high school age or older kids, I think what Kimberly may have been trying to tell you was to leave the ‘find the daddy’ thing alone with your own, since the chances are good you may disappoint him. And whatever happens eventually with your potential remarriage, it will THEN, and only then, happen.
I have also dated women who after 1-3 dates, had their own kids dropping by where I worked, thinking I was their new daddy. I hardly felt it fair to those children, for her to put me across to them that way. Just a caution advised sort of thing from me.
By FatMoose
March 1, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this
Personally, I love it when folks like John and Archie and NetBanker and RF and Renee and BlaBlaBla, Chilao, Sanhan, and others disagree with me. I learn so much from them. They present their opinions in rational, reasonable and well-thought out fashion, and I learn from them. In the end, we may still disagree, but we’ve heard each other out, and no one is being a jerk about it.
And I can say the exact same thing minus john and renee and you. Way it goes. John pi$$e$ off a lot of people - as do you and renee; as it should be - and i pi$$ you guys off. There are others that are always neutral - and those that only come out during specific hot issues.
By phentermine
March 2, 2006 05:50 AM | Link to this
phentermine http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/phenterminecool/buy-phentermine.html ; Thanks!
By Mara
March 2, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this
Mornin’ all.
Bla, regarding yesterdays 4:11 post to lozen -
I was the one who brought up the point that we count life span from the day of the actual birth and not from the date of conception. The point was that those who insist that life begins at conception are a little slack in that regard. When they say “I’m 32 years old.” are they really saying that they are 32 years and 9 months? Or are they, like those of us who believe (note the “believe” and not the “the fact is…”) that “life” begins at birth, counting only their life as an individual entity? Which brings up Whileys “parasite” comparison. Your question about whether the homeless or those on welfare also could be considered “parasites” was a bit disingenuous, don’t you think? Unlike a fetus, which leeches nutrients and oxygen from the “host”, the homeless and the poor can exist independently. That they don’t is largely a matter of their own personal choices and/or unforeseen circumstances. They don’t have to have public aid to survive. A fetus has to have a host. Nor does it make any contribution to the survival of said host, which is also part of the definition of parasite. At least the needy, even if they are now homeless or on welfare, can be presumed to have contributed in some fashion to the survival of their “host” (society as a whole), even if it is merely by their interactions with others.
Also, you listed ways in which the legal “rights” of a fetus could supercede those of your wife regarding your assets. Legally, you could leave all your property to your cat, too. Does that mean the cat has equal or greater rights than your wife? No, it means the law says you can. Owning and disposing of property isn’t a right. It’s a privilege and as such is regulated by law. Human rights (including in this context, the right of a woman to control her own body) are presumed to be inherent, not granted by law. And, IMHO, personal autonomy is necessary for ALL human rights to exist. Without the right to self-determination, none of the other rights (speech, assembly, freedom…) mean jack-s**.
That’s my opinion.
By chuck
March 2, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this
Whiley,
The 2005 population estimate for South Dakota is 775,933.
By Pro Life
March 2, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
Without the right to self-determination, none of the other rights (speech, assembly, freedom…) mean jack-s@#$.
We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But without the first right (the “right to life”) we have nothing.
By Just Being Me
March 2, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
Well, well, well. It’s another day!!! What a blessing it is to see the sunshine once again! A wise woman once told me, “You’ve only got 24 hours today, don’t spend too much of it on yesterday.” And, I know better than to disobey Nana, so… moving right along! :-)
Hey Mara, are you sure you can legally will your estate to your cat? I never knew that…
By Whiley
March 2, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
When women’s wombs & lives are owned & operated by a Govt. run by fetus lovers, women are reduced to nothing but baby machines for other people.
Hey Pro Life, are you going to pay for, care for, feed, change diapers, educate & cloth all these fetus’s you want to “save”? (no, I don’t expect an answer from yet another fetus lover)
By Pro Life
March 2, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
What has happened to our society when women start calling babies in their womb “parasites”?
This is one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever heard.
And when debating abortion don’t throw some bizarre case of a 12 year old inest victim up as your reason for legalizing it. These cases are so few and do not make a case for the majority of abortions which include women 21-33 who had consentual sex and got pregnant.
For the 97% of abortions done each year they are done on women who were not forced into sex (not raped).
There’s an old saying “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”. In other words, if you have sex there’s a chance you WILL get pregnant. If you’re not prepared to deal with that consequence then do not have pre-marital sex! You risk getting pregnant and contracting STD’s.
There’s nothing wrong with sex. But when you have it outside of marriage or with someone you’re not sure of then you have to understand there are RISKS involved.
By RF
March 2, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this
JBM- I used to wonder how my dear, sweet Granny became so wise. Now I find myself looking forward to the days when I can sit around in my robe all day and dispense wisdom and the little ones will think I’m sooooo smart!! Right now, they just look at me like I flew in from Mars!—LOL Speaking of the crumb munchers, how’s your daughter and the boyfriend thing going? You haven’t mentioned her much lately.
By Chilao
March 2, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
The 2005 population estimate for South Dakota is 775,933
and it would have been 776,733 except for…LOL Wonder how many that calculates to per square mile.
By Mara
March 2, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
Pro-life, surprisingly enough, I’m gonna agree with you. Every living person has the right to continue living. I don’t think you’ll get an arguement about that from anyone. The problems arise because, in your opinion, fetus’s are living people. In my opinion, they aren’t. That being said, I don’t think that my right to care for my body as I see fit should be predicated on whether or not I am playing host to a potential human being. In fact the whole reproductive rights arguement, from both sides, is dependant on opinion. My opinion is that a fetus developes “person-hood” the moment they can survive outside of my womb. I’m assuming your opinion is different.
So there ya’ go. Until society can agree on when life begins, your side will continue to argue that because I got pregnant, the child has the right to use my body for survival and my side will continue to say that it’s my body and my choice on whether to risk my health by carrying a fetus to term. (shrug) Impasse.
By RF
March 2, 2006 09:26