"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

You are projecting.

Marriage takes the honesty away from a relationship.
It's no longer me and you.
It's me and you and uncle sam.
I want *consensual* relations where me and my partner set our rules, not some 3rd party, and not when the rules are stacked against me.

Congratulations to your brother. Lucky him.

I never said women don't work.

I said that men make more personal sacrifices for their work - a true statement about men as a group. Exceptions don't alter the rule.

Yes, women under 35 out earn men now. And as legacy earners retire, we will be facing a situation where women out earn men at any age. Preferential admittance and hiring tend to have that effect. It's by design.

And women don't get paid less for the same work - the studies saying that don't account for hours worked and don't provide any breakdown of job title. E.g. Women doctors get paid less - because the type of doctor they choose to be is more likely to be a pediatrician than a heart surgeon or anesthesiologist. But within each category of doctor, per hour worked, and per year experience, their income is essentially identical.

And you don't need to be a home maker to get paid in a divorce. Just make less than your partner.
Historically the divorce rewards scale higher for women given mirror situations.

Why would I want to deal with a 50/50 split when I brought 90% of the assets into the marriage? A 50/50 split would set me back decades. I just want to keep my stuff, I did pay for it after all, which cost me money, which cost me time, which cost me life.

And why should /anyone/ have their life supported by anyone else?
(*context=spouses. Not interested in some bad faith out of context argument bringing up children or retirees supported by taxes, etc)
Are you able bodied? Then get working.
Is it tough? Too bad.
It's harder for both people supporting themselves alone, you aren't special. You were in this situation before you got married, you can go back to it.

In any case, the homemaker job argument is senseless. There are benefits (time with kids), and there are pitfalls (hole in your resume). You make your choice, and you deal with the consequences.
You are paid by the home over your head and the money you're given while you are a home maker. What other job do you get to leave and still be paid. People act as if the working partner was just chilling this whole time. Where are the working partner's continuing post divorce benefits?


I have no mindset about women. More projection.
I couldn't care less if I marry a stripper with 2 kids - so long as in the event of a divorce we go our separate ways with ZERO obligations to one another.

I have a mindset about the dangers of divorce, and the fact that most marriages end in divorce, and most divorces are initiated by the female partner.
I am on average more likely than not to face a divorce.
Hence the risk reduction by being more 'picky'.


I am in a nearly 20 year happy relationship - unmarried.
She's the boss of the relationship. And I'm fine with that because I *consent* to it. I can always walk away if I decide otherwise.

So long as laws and family court are how they are, I won't even consider marriage.

-scheherazade

So weird seeing people disagree with you, and then go off spouting shit about subjective benefits while married.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's pure win for the woman and pure loss for the man.

It's practically a carrot dangling in front of them daring them to divorce.

eg.

Woman wins :
Woman = Here's 30% of his income for 20 years and 50% of assets, and you get to walk away with no obligations.
Man = You get to keep all your financial marriage obligations for the rest of your productive life while she gets her divorce.

Man wins :
Man = Here's $500 for 6 months. You are an able bodied person and you can take care of yourself after that.
Woman = Pay him $500 for 6 months, then you have your divorce.

... and women win practically all the time.



So considering that most women 'marry up (financially)', and most women don't sacrifice personal life for career (to the extent that men do)... they benefit financially from marriage.

Then the divorce is massively skewed for their benefit.

So in the end, they win in marriage, and win in divorce.

And since it's the men paying for those wins, the men are losing and losing.

So yeah, I think your description is totally on point.




Marriage is so screwed up that I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators that suggest they are even slightly disloyal or temptable. Don't care how much I like them otherwise.

Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk

When the consequence of failure is immediate total financial annihilation, and a heavy financial burden for the rest of your productive life, you better F'ing choose carefully.

Or just don't get married.

(Or change the law so a divorce is actually a divorce for both people. No obligations. Just everyone go their own way.)

-scheherazade

Dude, you live in West Sacramento, so shut the fuck up. If you wanted to live somewhere nice, you would have moved to the Fab 40s or Land Park. Instead, you bought a cheap-ass house in a cheap-ass area because you're a cheap-ass prick, so suck it up.

You're lucky that bangers aren't drive-by'ing your house 24/7, because that's what West Sac was like in the 80s. The only reason anyone ever went to West Sac was to buy drugs, usually from me. That place was fucking anarchy for decades. My friend and sales associate used to down a 5th of Jack, then camp out on his back porch with a .22 and shoot rats off the power lines. Occasionally, he actually hit one instead of blacking out the whole block. Then, once he was done dealing with the local wildlife, he'd move on to blowing off M-80s and M-100s at 4 in the morning. That's what West Sac used to be like on a quiet night. When shit got rowdy -- a day we called 'pretty much any hot summer day' -- the fun was fully uncorked. Shootings, fires, more shootings, vandalism, fist-fights, street robberies, SO much more shooting, an increase in drug sales and thus my income; even the cops stayed off the streets on nights like that.

This idiot wouldn't have lasted five minutes in West Sac back then. Fucking skateboarding -- shit.

@eric3579 had it right, because the first link looks like the source:
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/04/08/us-workers-are-highly-taxed-when-you-count-health-premiums/

But when that source lists the graph that Cross used as "labor tax", it is listed as coming from OECD NTCP, with NTCP standing for "Non-Tax Compulsary Payments" and has the same 11% for Canada and other numbers. So, the OECD 'original' source of the data is 100% excluding Federal and State/Provincial income taxes, and potentially sales taxes as well.

So with that knowledge, yeah, gross misrepresentation.

And it gets worse in that peoplespolicyproject is showing 2017 numbers, so maybe that is the only difference... But they list Belgium at 38.3% while the OECD current 2019 data shows 44.5, so maybe some year-year change, but the US data from OECD for 2019 comes in at 24.1%, and at the least in the middle of EU countries while whatever source ppp used pegged Us at 43%.

So not only is it deceptive in describing it as 'tax' when the numbers are expressly sourced from NonTax data(named as such), it's also at BEST number that can double or drop by half within 2 years as well and so maybe not a great policy benchmark either unless you average out multiple years at minimum

I thought the same thing. If average Canadians only paid 11% total in taxes Canada would have been forced to build a wall to stop all the republicans trying to move there.


Ahhh.....Thanks @eric3579 . He's taking what they called "labor tax" which apparently is some nonsense number they produced that, while it includes employee income and payroll tax as well as employer contributions, is somehow far less than employee income and payroll taxes alone in Canada, labor tax is listed at 11.5% with the next lowest being the UK at 26.1%. Somebody screwed up here, their numbers don't add up.

Canadian here with my jaw on the floor. At 2:25 I learned that the average Canadian has 11% of their wages consumed by taxes and other listed costs...

The lowest Canadian federal tax bracket is 15%, and most provincial taxes add another 15% as well, so 99% of Canadians have a floor of 30% just to income taxes...

Where in the heck are these numbers in the video from???

Bob, as much as this'll surprise you, I totally agree with what you're saying. The distribution of the stimulus money to couples making up to $150,000 is friggen ridiculous -- and I'm in that category. I will do what I did with the last two checks: give to local charities helping the homeless and communities of color (as much as I hate that term).

The worst part of this is that it sets up a liquidity trap. The Fed can't reduce buying crap debt (that BBB dogshit is at 4% should terrify anyone who understands how debt and the rating agencies work), nor can they allow rates to rise (thus totally screwing responsible savers). This is the cusp of a financial disaster that blew past 1929 on 9/17/19 and is now approaching the cataclysm of the South Seas Company collapsing. As far as I can see, this is a total melt-up in the markets because there's no stable returns and everyone is now in speculation mode.

Were it my call, I would scale the money along income (or non-income) lines: $10k for the lowest incomes, sliding scale from there. I'd also set up government-backed savings accounts that pay 10% for those people and only those people. I'd also pay off/down student debt along the same income scales.

I do not begrudge the wealthy for their wealth. But capitalism can't be a winner-take-all system. We live in a society, and society will always have winners and losers. The least we can do is ease the burden for those at the bottom by taking some from the top. I'm tired of the homeless camps and mentally-ill people wandering the streets of Seattle. They are the least of us and thus should be the ones who get the most help.

"anti-family & pro-terrorist?"

wtf just happen at the Capitol? in the Senate? killing men & women is as anti-family* and terroristic AF.

as far as terrorist groups, the GOP is a far greater threat than RATM. sanctioning anyone in their group voting against the president?! having self-respect, voting your conscience, being principled, standing up for law & order - no place for them in the party.

brown-shirts were held to the same standard.

the mobsters, doing the don's bidding, defecated & urinated on a national landmark yet only they get any punishment?

turtle mitch said dimwit donnie was guilty and should be punished - but not by them. they were sworn to uphold the Consitution...but he violated the Consitution so long ago...too late for recourse.

as if the incoming AG will be rooted on by the GOP?

that orange turd said he could shoot a person on 5th Ave with nothing happening to him. he got 5 killed and nothing is happening.


~~~~~but the video was great.

got sidetrack.
damn me for caring.

*antifam

Oh fuck, Bobby...20 lies to debunk? You suck.

1) and how many lost?...tens of millions
2) citation needed, and even if true, there are many more unemployed too, there are more of us. What you neglect is that there are more trying to work because it’s impossible to live on one average income and even children have to work to pay the family bills
3) citation needed, and lost how many millions? The net has been a loss of manufacturing, most of his gains never materialized
4) for one quarter after declining at the fastest rate in history for two. If I drop you off a 100’ cliff yesterday, then lift you up by 6’ today, I still made your position much worse even though it’s incredibly better than yesterday when you were falling...I don't get kudos for picking you up after stomping you into the dirt.
5) economic growth the quarter before reduced by what was it, >30%? That’s still a loss, dummy. See #4
6) new unemployment claims hit 50year highs for 3 quarters before, and new rules take many unemployed off the list so it looks better for Donny. The unemployment rate is still historically high
7)average household income has decreased. Rich became much richer, poor became poorer. Average Americans saw a loss in income
8 ) already discussed unemployment, you’re misstating or obfuscating the whole picture
9) anyone suspected of being undocumented is removed from the list....not an honest number by far
10) more fake numbers
11) more fake numbers
12) more fake numbers
13) more fake numbers
14) more fake numbers

Here’s the real data, notice only three states weren’t in the worst unemployment position ever last year.... https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/lauhsthl.htm
Also note not a single one is at it’s historic low unemployment, and most saw record high unemployment rates for most of 2020.
I give him credit, at the beginning of 2020, before he screwed it all up with his failures over the Trump pandemic, about 1/3 of states were near record unemployment by the newer standards. I have to wonder how much of those gains were due to changing g the criteria for counting the unemployed.
When you drop your victim in a 100’ hole you don’t get kudos for throwing them a 6’ ladder
15) you mean thrown out of the programs, there’s more need than anytime since the Great Depression. It's incredibly dishonest to make qualifying for assistance far more difficult, then use the lower numbers of people who qualify as proof you improved conditions. Utter bullshit.
16) they’ve pledged that before. Call me when they graduate, until then it’s another empty promise
17) citation? Probably a Trump speech talking point
18) it was Christmas...they ALWAYS surge in Dec, usually by a ton more than this year. Let’s see the yearly number for 2020. I don’t believe for a second it was better than 2019...citation? Oops, looked it up, declined, didn’t go up. I think you’re looking at predictions for December, they were WAY below predictions.

US Retail Sales Unexpectedly Drop in December
US retail trade fell 0.7 percent from a month earlier in December 2020, following a revised 1.4 percent decline in November and compared with market expectations of a flat reading. That was also the third consecutive month of decline in consumption, amid record COVID-19 infections, high unemployment levels and lack of government's support. Receipts declined at electronics & appliance stores (-4.9 percent vs -8.3 percent in November), restaurants and bars (-4.5 percent vs -3.6 percent), food & beverage stores (-1.4 percent vs 1.5 percent), general merchandise stores (-1.2 percent vs -1.3 percent), sporting goods, hobby, musical instrument & books stores (-0.8 percent vs -1.7 percent), and furniture stores (-0.6 percent vs -2.1 percent). In addition, online trade slumped 5.8 percent, accelerating from a 1.6 percent decrease in the previous month.

19) not for people making less than millions a year, our tax cuts were minimal, temporary, and unnoticeable. What’s the debt now? He cut revenue and increased spending....thanks to failing to deal with COVID, it’s likely he doubled the debt. What was the low estimate, >$6trillion in unplanned off the budget socialist handouts to fix his lack of a public pandemic plan. This year the debt is going to outpace gdp....the deficit was up by 35% BEFORE the Trump recession.
$300 billion didn't leave...that number was the total high estimate of businesses that said they were moving off shore because they didn't want to pay taxes or said they would move back...if you believe him...and it was only for one quarter, a one time gain at a cost of >$1.2 trillion per year In lost tax revenue. Great plan. It was a one time thing, and much of that business left anyway within the year. GM plant? Foxconn? Harley Davidson? How much of that claimed $300 Billion was based on promises that never materialized?

20) not most small businesses, only those making what was it, >$500000 a year? That’s not most “small businesses “....and that tax rate is temporary, phased out completely after 10 years, corporate tax rates and rates for billionaires is permanent.

You must ignore or fake all economic data from 2020 to make these claims, and even then they would be dishonest exaggeration based on baseless claims from a constant liar.

Not one point you made is honest...that’s why you can’t provide references or citations, you would be embarrassed to admit it all came straight from Don the con’s lying mouth and not organizations that professionally study these claims.

@newtboy ...LEARN
1. Almost 4 million jobs created since election.
2. More Americans are now employed than ever in our history.
3. Created more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since his election.
4. Manufacturing jobs growing at the fastest rate in more than three decades.
5. Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.
6. New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.

7. Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.

8. African-American unemployment has recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.

9. Hispanic-American unemployment is at the lowest rate ever recorded.

10. Asian-American unemployment recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.

11. Women’s unemployment recently reached the lowest rate in 65 years.

12. Youth unemployment has recently hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century.

13. Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma.

14. Under this administration, veterans’ unemployment recently reached its lowest rate in nearly 20 years.

15. Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.

16. The Pledge to America’s Workers has resulted in employers committing to train more than 4 million Americans.

17. Ninty-five percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future, the highest ever.

18. Retail sales surged last month, up another 6% over last year.

19. Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. After tax cuts, over $300 billion poured back in to the U.S. in the first quarter alone.

20. As a result of his tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.

Wait Bob...
Of the 20+ hours of people speaking you cherry pick a few.
I only like the funny ones.
I personally think that 70% can be explained away in a legit way.
That 70% number is based purely on your personal wishes.
I like 99.9%.
However when election law is not followed... must be looked into.
If you want to accuse of fraud you have to back that up with evidence, not hearsay. This is why elections must have a paper trail, recounts must be possible. If you want to point a finger you have to point it at something concrete, not just flail it at everything at once. All the individual accusations of fraud have turned out to be either nonsense or tiny errors (in both directions).
BARR comes out...
Sad that the great commander is surrounded by these incompetent fools. How different could history have been if only Trumps genius was truly understood and implemented by his minions.
This isn't over. Trump still has fight in him.
Probably. More funny videos incoming.
Those 20+ hours of hearings and meetings have 200,000 to 500,000 viewers watching on line. Too bad Fake news only telling the story of what sock color Biden is wearing.
You seriously want more people to see Karen?

I didn't come up with it. It was the conclusion of the 9/11 commission. If you disagree , your beef is with them.

I'm sorry you are so ill informed. Perhaps out might try being less dismissive and insulting about your ignorance....but likely not.

Apparently it wasn't enough time for him to grasp the seriousness. It was barely enough time to staff the NSA. They briefed him a few times, but the "Osama Bin Laden preparing to attack" report went unread or at best unheeded. Again, this is according to the bipartisan Senate commission set up to determine what actually happened.

Edit: Andy Card, Bush's chief of staff - “The 9/11 Commission had said if there had been a longer transition and there had been cooperation, there might have been a better response, or maybe not even any attack,” the former chief of staff said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/11/former-bush-chief-of-staff-cites-9/11-warns-about-slow-transition.html

The 9/11 Commission Report noted:
"[T]he 36-day delay cut in half the normal transition period. Given that a presidential election in the United States brings wholesale change in personnel, this loss of time hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing, and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees."
The point is that delaying these processes such as obtaining background checks can create significant later delays in putting new officials into place and in some cases obtaining Senate confirmations. Delays in the transference of information with the incoming team can also obstruct the next administration’s ability to carry out existing and new policies.
Perhaps you're unaware, the Bush administration, like others before it, did not have its full national security team on the job until at least six months after it took office.

Plans like watch for groups of middle eastern men who suddenly have funds to move to America, especially those who want to learn to fly, but not take off or land. Plans like track Bin Laden's money and deny people he funds from entering the country. Plans like focus on his communications to learn what his plans were. Plans like take him out before he attacks. There were many plans, I'm sure most were classified but many just common sense.

Really, you never heard the intelligence community makes plans to deal with threats?! They might not have been successful at stopping an attack, but at least could have tried.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]