OT: Muslim president

[poorgradstudent]

I actually think a more interesting question is when we’ll finally have an agnostic or atheist president.

It’s convenient for politicians to identify with the religion they were raised in, especially if it is a mainstream religion, even in Europe. 25% of millennials self-identify as “none” for religion. Many elected officials are older, the torch is currently being passed from the Boomers to Gen X. It’s going to be interesting to see when the Millenials start electing openly non-religious candidates to high offices.

[FlyerInHi]

Very interesting poorgrad. The most reliable voters are older. So have to wait until they die off.

But we already have both a Muslim and godless atheist in Obama.

[zk]

[quote=poorgradstudent] It’s going to be interesting to see when the Millenials start electing openly non-religious candidates to high offices.[/quote]

That would be fascinating and wonderful.

[bearishgurl]

Yes, CAR, I have and DO hear this “unilateral decision” story or the “Unbeknownst to me, she reported to work after her maternity leave was up and then quit within a few hours/days/weeks and hasn’t worked since,” story often.

I believe there ARE a lot of communication problems in marriages, especially those with kids in the picture. A LOT of higher-earning parents absolutely cannot afford to support a family with kids by themselves (at least in the manner the household has been used to) and only agreed to have children if the the other parent continued to bring in their customary income after the children were born. They didn’t sign up for their spouse turning the tables on them in secret but this actually happens a lot.

I DID state that the payor spouse is to blame as well for allowing the problem to go on, thus being part of the cause of the problem in the event of divorce. “Support liability” is a HUGE OBSTACLE and many times the ONLY OBSTACLE to filing for divorce for many higher-earning spouses. That’s why we see more women filing for divorce than men and why we see so many “gray” divorce filings and filings shortly after the last kid graduates from HS. I feel it is a travesty that so many parents live in misery for a decade or more due to monthly CS payments typically ordered in CA being tied to child custody timeshare percentages ordered (which I feel is so wrong in so many ways). At its worst, it invites protracted child custody litigation.

Perhaps the families you are familiar with in this regard have one parent with substantial wages or other income in their own right, large enough to support a family with multiple kids. But that is not reflective of parents as a whole, especially those raising kids in coastal CA counties.

My prior post has no bearing on whether I “respect” or don’t respect SAHP’s. I honestly don’t have a position on it or a personal problem with it. It was just to bring up that in CA, BOTH parents are expected to support their children in the event of a divorce (or in the case of never-married parents). There is no provision in the law for recompense (in the form of back wages) for the prior services of a SAHP ordered because it is assumed that their own support was paid by the payor-party all during the time their household and child-caring services were rendered.

If the SAHP is eligible for spousal support, this may be ordered if they are not paid a lump sum in lieu out of community property. However, in the garden-variety divorce of the “non-rich,” it is unlikely that this lump sum or monthly payment is anywhere near enough to support the previously dependent spouse either short term or long term and it isn’t meant to be. It’s meant to help them get on their feet with the short-term goal of self-sufficiency.

My post wasn’t aimed at you or any Pigg in particular. It was just to illustrate the way the “system” operates, which none of us can do anything about. I apologize if you took it personally.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Very interesting poorgrad. The most reliable voters are older. So have to wait until they die off.

But we already have both a Muslim and godless atheist in Obama.[/quote]

It’s not easy to be both Muslim and Atheist, but god bless him, Obama is just that good and smart and talented he can pull it off!

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]Yes, CAR, I have and DO hear this “unilateral decision” story or the “Unbeknownst to me, she reported to work after her maternity leave was up and then quit within a few hours/days/weeks and hasn’t worked since,” story often.

I believe there ARE a lot of communication problems in marriages, especially those with kids in the picture. A LOT of higher-earning parents absolutely cannot afford to support a family with kids by themselves (at least in the manner the household has been used to) and only agreed to have children if the the other parent continued to bring in their customary income after the children were born. They didn’t sign up for their spouse turning the tables on them in secret but this actually happens a lot.

I DID state that the payor spouse is to blame as well for allowing the problem to go on, thus being part of the cause of the problem in the event of divorce. “Support liability” is a HUGE OBSTACLE and many times the ONLY OBSTACLE to filing for divorce for many higher-earning spouses. That’s why we see more women filing for divorce than men and why we see so many “gray” divorce filings and filings shortly after the last kid graduates from HS. I feel it is a travesty that so many parents live in misery for a decade or more due to monthly CS payments typically ordered in CA being tied to child custody timeshare percentages ordered (which I feel is so wrong in so many ways). At its worst, it invites protracted child custody litigation.

Perhaps the families you are familiar with in this regard have one parent with substantial wages or other income in their own right, large enough to support a family with multiple kids. But that is not reflective of parents as a whole, especially those raising kids in coastal CA counties.

My prior post has no bearing on whether I “respect” or don’t respect SAHP’s. I honestly don’t have a position on it or a personal problem with it. It was just to bring up that in CA, BOTH parents are expected to support their children in the event of a divorce (or in the case of never-married parents). There is no provision in the law for recompense (in the form of back wages) for the prior services of a SAHP ordered because it is assumed that their own support was paid by the payor-party all during the time their household and child-caring services were rendered.

If the SAHP is eligible for spousal support, this may be ordered if they are not paid a lump sum in lieu out of community property. However, in the garden-variety divorce of the “non-rich,” it is unlikely that this lump sum or monthly payment is anywhere near enough to support the previously dependent spouse either short term or long term and it isn’t meant to be. It’s meant to help them get on their feet with the short-term goal of self-sufficiency.

My post wasn’t aimed at you or any Pigg in particular. It was just to illustrate the way the “system” operates, which none of us can do anything about. I apologize if you took it personally.[/quote]

1.) Having a SAHP is never done in secret (and if it is done in secret, which I’ve never seen or heard of before, it wouldn’t be long before somebody finds out).

2.) It seems as though you are basing your opinions about the unilateral nature of this decision on people who are already in the process of getting a divorce, presumably via some of the legal work you’ve done. That is the time when a formerly approving spouse is likely to change his/her tune and claim that the decision was unilateral in order to gain sympathy from those involved in the divorce proceedings. But it’s not indicative of what went on during the marriage.

3.) I do not know of a single marriage where the decision to have a SAHP was made unilaterally, and I know people from some very poor and some very wealthy households, many/most of whom live within a few miles of the coast.

4.) I’ve already called you out on the myth of the purchasing power of the second income earner, particularly when there are young children involved. You said that you would go through my numbers to try to prove that the second income-earners wages are more substantial, but have failed to do so. This is a well-known fact, BG, which is why so many more families are reverting back to single-income earners. Not only does it work out financially, but it works out better for the children.

5.) Having a parent at home is not a “problem,” as you suggest; for many people, it’s the best/only way for them to run their households and maintain a good marriage and family life. SAHPs ARE working parents. The fact that the person doesn’t earn an income does not change this fact. Taking care of your children IS supporting them, as is earning an income.

6.) The reason people wait until their youngest child is out of the house before getting a divorce isn’t because of child support payments in most cases, it’s because most people know that children do better in a two-parent household. Forcing children into a nomadic lifestyle while shuffling between both of their parents’ homes is a poor substitute for having an intact family. Many people are wise enough to understand this, so are willing to make the sacrifices themselves by sticking it out until the kids are grown, instead of making their children suffer for their parents’ mistakes (abuse is obviously an exception, and parents should indeed do whatever is necessary to remove themselves and their children from abusive situations).

7.) No, the SAHP is not being compensated fully during the time that he/she is taking care of the children and household. A shared room and bathroom is hardly adequate compensation for the kind of work SAHPs do and the sacrifices they make for their families (social, educational, work/financial, etc.) and, oftentimes, their spouse’s career. There is an expectation that marriage is a lifelong commitment, and the SAHP receives part of his/her compensation later in life after the children have grown. It’s like deferred compensation for the work they’ve already done.

8.) You, of all people, should know that spousal support and community property division are two completely separate legal matters.

This isn’t about me, BG. It’s about you. You make a habit of popping off about things you know nothing about, and you push your opinions and life choices onto others even when they tell you to knock it off. You have a lot to offer about the things that you do understand (municipal law, etc.), but that doesn’t translate to knowledge about other people’s housing choices, parenting styles, marital choices, food choices, exercise choices, etc. You need to do what’s right for you, but realize that other people are doing what’s right for them. You are not knowledgeable enough to tell others how they should run their lives.

Here’s a very short video of Elizabeth Warren explaining the “two-income trap.” The second income is a big part of the problem, and I believe it’s largely responsible for the economic troubles we’re experiencing right now:

Here’s a longer video of one of her lectures:

Here’s a link to her book:

You (and many others) really need to educate yourself about this, BG.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=FlyerInHi]More total income per household is better than less. There’s a correlation, but marriage in of itself doesn’t guarantee that. Marriage is just social engineering for pooling of resources.[/quote]

Social engineering for the pooling of resources is the basics of society, whether an ant colony, chimpanzee group or human grouping.

Back to topic, I prefer Sanders to HRod. I prefer him to the republican candidates. interestingly Trump and Sanders are both against the trade deal. Trump is kind of the opposite of Sanders. A Jeb Sanders race would be boring and non-telling as it becomes a “safe” status quo candidate against something more radical. Trump not so much.

I also think Sanders would be interesting watching four years of his Vermontism (very similar to the scandavian outlook) running into the reality of American society at large. Many of his solutions would be great if we all acted like Vermonters towards our neighbors.

[Hobie]

Elizabeth Warren nailed this duel income trap. Further, look what is happening now in new housing: Multi-generational units. Full granny flat downstairs off the main entrance. Not just for taking care of elderly, but need their money to keep family afloat. Not just higher lifestyle expectations, but the cost of living ( inflation, higher energy, etc.) less people can do it on a single income.

btw. still don’t agree with Warren’s policy ideas. In case anyone feared I crossed over ;).

[CA renter]

[quote=Hobie]Elizabeth Warren nailed this duel income trap. Further, look what is happening now in new housing: Multi-generational units. Full granny flat downstairs off the main entrance. Not just for taking care of elderly, but need their money to keep family afloat. Not just higher lifestyle expectations, but the cost of living ( inflation, higher energy, etc.) less people can do it on a single income.

btw. still don’t agree with Warren’s policy ideas. In case anyone feared I crossed over ;).[/quote]

Cross over! We’re nice over here. 🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi]More total income per household is better than less. There’s a correlation, but marriage in of itself doesn’t guarantee that. Marriage is just social engineering for pooling of resources.[/quote]

Social engineering for the pooling of resources is the basics of society, whether an ant colony, chimpanzee group or human grouping.

Back to topic, I prefer Sanders to HRod. I prefer him to the republican candidates. interestingly Trump and Sanders are both against the trade deal. Trump is kind of the opposite of Sanders. A Jeb Sanders race would be boring and non-telling as it becomes a “safe” status quo candidate against something more radical. Trump not so much.

I also think Sanders would be interesting watching four years of his Vermontism (very similar to the scandavian outlook) running into the reality of American society at large. Many of his solutions would be great if we all acted like Vermonters towards our neighbors.[/quote]

Trump and Sanders actually share many of the same views (progressive taxation, putting American workers first, getting big money out of politics, etc.), but Trump is just more obnoxious when he talks about it. 😉

Agree with you about Vermonters. It will be interesting to see how these policies play out in the larger population.

[Hobie]

NSR: Doesn’t Sanders ideas of increasing federal spending to the tune of $18MM over a decade cause you concern?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

[CA renter]

[quote=Hobie]NSR: Doesn’t Sanders ideas of increasing federal spending to the tune of $18MM over a decade cause you concern?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511%5B/quote%5D

It would not cost $18 trillion. They neglected to factor in savings and long-term benefits to the economy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-wsj-18-trillion

FWIW, I do not support “free college,” but think that we should roll back costs to the levels we had in the 70s and 80s, relative to minimum wage. The cost for a college education today is insane and completely unjustifiable, especially when the benefits of a college degree are even less today than what they were 15+ years ago. We also need to move away from the push to get everyone in college because we have a glut of college graduates, even in STEM majors, and a shortage of good, highly-skilled tradespeople.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter][quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi]More total income per household is better than less. There’s a correlation, but marriage in of itself doesn’t guarantee that. Marriage is just social engineering for pooling of resources.[/quote]

Social engineering for the pooling of resources is the basics of society, whether an ant colony, chimpanzee group or human grouping.

Back to topic, I prefer Sanders to HRod. I prefer him to the republican candidates. interestingly Trump and Sanders are both against the trade deal. Trump is kind of the opposite of Sanders. A Jeb Sanders race would be boring and non-telling as it becomes a “safe” status quo candidate against something more radical. Trump not so much.

I also think Sanders would be interesting watching four years of his Vermontism (very similar to the scandavian outlook) running into the reality of American society at large. Many of his solutions would be great if we all acted like Vermonters towards our neighbors.[/quote]

Trump and Sanders actually share many of the same views (progressive taxation, putting American workers first, getting big money out of politics, etc.), but Trump is just more obnoxious when he talks about it. 😉

Agree with you about Vermonters. It will be interesting to see how these policies play out in the larger population.[/quote]

I agree about Trump, many of his policies are in line with sanders and those are what makes him popular. His obnoxious attitude when coupled with some other issues like immigration where nothing has been done since Reagan is also what makes him popular. The general public is largely jut fed up.

[CA renter]

Agreed.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Hobie]NSR: Doesn’t Sanders ideas of increasing federal spending to the tune of $18MM over a decade cause you concern?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511%5B/quote%5D

Compared to what? HRod? Jeb?

whats the real cost over the next decade of the last 8 years of political bickering, ideologue blocking and rancor? Oh wait I know, 14 years of war a bombed hospital and dead volunteer doctors? Continued festering of things like LAUSD? Disney getting a public slap down for trying to send the theme park IT jobs overseas? Volkswagen gaming the environment for years? A financial system that is basically unchanged after 8 years of continued economic crises?

[Author]

Posts