The US should just end the institution of Marriage

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

***
That was wall streets doing: 401's, deferred taxes etc so they'd sell more stocks.

Where do you get your financial information? Finance and banking is a quite broad area. This sentence and your comments on other threads with mention of entities such as “stock companies” leaves me scratching my head; I can’t understand what you’re talking about. The concept of the US 401K plans does put individuals more in control – it would be a useful addition for other countries to incorporate.

You’re angry and wish America could go back to 1955; we get that. We just ask that your rants are phrased so as to be comprehensible.

You can read about it here. Since corporations couldn't hold the money someone else had to. And what industry might that be be? Wall Street/ corporate America. Allocate money from a persons pay check to buy stock from the very firm they worked if they wanted, is , well pretty self serving. And who lobbied the IRS to adopt the plan? Stock firms/ public firms and are tied to wall street. Mom and pop sell no stock and compete with wall street titans, the reason wall street is anxious to end all small business in this country and their doing a pretty good job of that. Just walk down Kst in Georgtown DC and you'll know exaclty what I'm talking about. No bistros left, Starbucks, Gap stock firm have infiltrated pushing the little guys out.
This is about marriage, not about gov't backed retirment plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401%28k%29#History

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I know we're both kinda 1/2 serious about it, but it would take a long long time in this reality. Maybe not in some other parallel universe, but for the time being we're stuck with this one.

What do we do about equal rights in the meantime?

It took them a long time to create a system of arbitrary favoritism, etc. It'll take a long time to fix.

In the meantime - we really should consider approaches that fix the main issue instead of bandaids. I don't know how other than to just delete the whole thing and start from scratch and deal with the transition.

I'm married, I know this might negatively affect me.
(I also think tax deductions and penalties and subsidies are stupid and should be deleted - I'm a homeowner, I know I'd lose a big deduction.... at least I'm consistent)

Rebuild is sometimes the smarter answer than repair. (My cynicism tells me that even if they did this impossible thing, someone somewhere would start a reparations efforts against those that used to get marriage benefits......)


I support marriage equality as it's being defined now. I just wish they'd fix it smarter so that we include everyone rather than just add to an existing group. Or just delete the existing group of benefits. (everyone, or no one. But if it's 'everyone' then there's no real need. People don't get that everything is paid for, that's why we have spending issue.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Rebuild is sometimes the smarter answer than repair. (My cynicism tells me that even if they did this impossible thing, someone somewhere would start a reparations efforts against those that used to get marriage benefits......)

Agreed. I lean towards current married couples being grandfathered in to the existing benefit structure. For instance, my grandfather does not have long and my grandmother has never held a job outside of the home. Survivor benefits were intended for that generation and it's special circumstances. That generation is still with us. I don't think they should have the rug pulled out from under them.

That said, everything needs to be on the table. With some exceptions I think we need to tear down much of the system and start fresh with the first order of business being an amendment to the constitution to keep the failures we call our representatives in better check.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

an amendment to the constitution to keep the failures we call our representatives in better check.

What would it essentially say?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

an amendment to the constitution to keep the failures we call our representatives in better check.

What would it essentially say?

"straighten up and fly right, or else"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

an amendment to the constitution to keep the failures we call our representatives in better check.

What would it essentially say?

New thread created to not distract from this one.

[billvon 3,119]

>the US might consider simply ending the contractual arrangement of
>marriage.

Absolutely! Let people get married by churches (or not) as they please. Replace the civil side of marriage with a simpler contract.

>IVF would become illegal-- don't have a egg, don't have a sperm then
>you'll have to deal with that just like the blind have to deal with being born
>blind.

This I don't get. Blind people can often be cured, but not 100% of the time. IVF can cure infertility but not 100% of the time.

>Adoption is permitted by contract holders.

I'd let adoption agencies decide that. Some single parents might make great parents; some contract holders might not be.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'd let adoption agencies decide that. Some single parents might make great parents; some contract holders might not be.

yes to the rest, but this part I felt the same way.

If you want to adopt, the agency inspects the home, does some checks and if the home looks good - then they can adopt (single, married, group, whatever). the environment and the stability that actually DEMONSTRATED is a lot more important than some bias based on pre-conceptions. (here's a service where I'm all for background checks too - )

IVF comment - .frankly, I don't care if you are a fertile traditional couple either, I'd prefer the same for them too. (want a kid - naturally, IVF or adoption - prove you have a good and stable home)


^ ---that comment steams up people - it's on purpose (WHAT?!! you can't place restrictions on a fertile married straight couple...)

See, here's the issue - if you object to a couple having any requirement/restrictions to have a kid......then honestly you have to object to a different level of restrictions for adoption, or IVF as well. So inspect away for EVERYONE, or allow it unrestricted for EVERYONE. (This isn't gay v straight, it's also for singles, group homes, etc etc etc....)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

I'd let adoption agencies decide that. Some single parents might make great parents; some contract holders might not be.

yes to the rest, but this part I felt the same way.

If you want to adopt, the agency inspects the home, does some checks and if the home looks good - then they can adopt (single, married, group, whatever). the environment and the stability that actually DEMONSTRATED is a lot more important than some bias based on pre-conceptions. (here's a service where I'm all for background checks too - )

IVF comment - .frankly, I don't care if you are a fertile traditional couple either, I'd prefer the same for them too. (want a kid - naturally, IVF or adoption - prove you have a good and stable home)


^ ---that comment steams up people - it's on purpose (WHAT?!! you can't place restrictions on a fertile married straight couple...)

See, here's the issue - if you object to a couple having any requirement/restrictions to have a kid......then honestly you have to object to a different level of restrictions for adoption, or IVF as well. So inspect away for EVERYONE, or allow it unrestricted for EVERYONE. (This isn't gay v straight, it's also for singles, group homes, etc etc etc....)

Group can adopt? What makes you think the group would tell the agency they are satin worshipers.

Come on guys.. get a grip.

Only two people can have a baby and the further away you stray from the natural parents raising the child they more fucked up it gets.

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Group can adopt? What makes you think the group would tell the agency they are satin worshipers.

The sewing machines, the dress-makers doll, the patterns all are pretty big clues...

Quote

Only two people can have a baby and the further away you stray from the natural parents raising the child they more fucked up it gets.

Citation please. Again. Any time now. Whenever you're ready.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

they are satin worshipers.

Ooh! Sounds soft and silky. Where do I sign up?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

they are satin worshipers.

Ooh! Sounds soft and silky. Where do I sign up?

don't forget shiny

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[oldwomanc6 60]

Quote

Quote

Quote

they are satin worshipers.

Ooh! Sounds soft and silky. Where do I sign up?

don't forget shiny

With good thread count.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***
That was wall streets doing: 401's, deferred taxes etc so they'd sell more stocks.

Where do you get your financial information? Finance and banking is a quite broad area. This sentence and your comments on other threads with mention of entities such as “stock companies” leaves me scratching my head; I can’t understand what you’re talking about. The concept of the US 401K plans does put individuals more in control – it would be a useful addition for other countries to incorporate.

You’re angry and wish America could go back to 1955; we get that. We just ask that your rants are phrased so as to be comprehensible.

You can read about it here. Since corporations couldn't hold the money someone else had to. And what industry might that be be? Wall Street/ corporate America. Allocate money from a persons pay check to buy stock from the very firm they worked if they wanted, is , well pretty self serving. And who lobbied the IRS to adopt the plan? Stock firms/ public firms and are tied to wall street. Mom and pop sell no stock and compete with wall street titans, the reason wall street is anxious to end all small business in this country and their doing a pretty good job of that. Just walk down Kst in Georgtown DC and you'll know exaclty what I'm talking about. No bistros left, Starbucks, Gap stock firm have infiltrated pushing the little guys out.
This is about marriage, not about gov't backed retirment plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401%28k%29#History

you do not have to buy stocks with your 401k. it is a vehicle for you to save money without paying normal income tax on it. it is not a stock fund and was not created for the purchase of stocks. this was all explained to you on your last 401k thread. im only posting this so people dont get confused by your lack of understanding.

Banks love small companies. HP started in a shed, google in a college dorm or shortly after. Small companies are the next big companies and banks stumble over each other trying to find the next big thing. small successful companies are lavished with attention from banks hoping to gain their business. you are clueless about finance as evidenced by all your post.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

***
That was wall streets doing: 401's, deferred taxes etc so they'd sell more stocks.

Where do you get your financial information? Finance and banking is a quite broad area. This sentence and your comments on other threads with mention of entities such as “stock companies” leaves me scratching my head; I can’t understand what you’re talking about. The concept of the US 401K plans does put individuals more in control – it would be a useful addition for other countries to incorporate.

You’re angry and wish America could go back to 1955; we get that. We just ask that your rants are phrased so as to be comprehensible.

You can read about it here. Since corporations couldn't hold the money someone else had to. And what industry might that be be? Wall Street/ corporate America. Allocate money from a persons pay check to buy stock from the very firm they worked if they wanted, is , well pretty self serving. And who lobbied the IRS to adopt the plan? Stock firms/ public firms and are tied to wall street. Mom and pop sell no stock and compete with wall street titans, the reason wall street is anxious to end all small business in this country and their doing a pretty good job of that. Just walk down Kst in Georgtown DC and you'll know exaclty what I'm talking about. No bistros left, Starbucks, Gap stock firm have infiltrated pushing the little guys out.
This is about marriage, not about gov't backed retirment plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401%28k%29#History

you do not have to buy stocks with your 401k. it is a vehicle for you to save money without paying normal income tax on it. it is not a stock fund and was not created for the purchase of stocks. this was all explained to you on your last 401k thread. im only posting this so people dont get confused by your lack of understanding.

Banks love small companies. HP started in a shed, google in a college dorm or shortly after. Small companies are the next big companies and banks stumble over each other trying to find the next big thing. small successful companies are lavished with attention from banks hoping to gain their business. you are clueless about finance as evidenced by all your post.

Bond funds are a part of 401. Everyone knows that but a large percentage of money in 401's is invested in stocks or mutual funds. Of course you know all about banking and finance. Perhaps you could tell us why most all the banks are paying huge fines for fraud dealings?

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

***
That was wall streets doing: 401's, deferred taxes etc so they'd sell more stocks.

Where do you get your financial information? Finance and banking is a quite broad area. This sentence and your comments on other threads with mention of entities such as “stock companies” leaves me scratching my head; I can’t understand what you’re talking about. The concept of the US 401K plans does put individuals more in control – it would be a useful addition for other countries to incorporate.

You’re angry and wish America could go back to 1955; we get that. We just ask that your rants are phrased so as to be comprehensible.

You can read about it here. Since corporations couldn't hold the money someone else had to. And what industry might that be be? Wall Street/ corporate America. Allocate money from a persons pay check to buy stock from the very firm they worked if they wanted, is , well pretty self serving. And who lobbied the IRS to adopt the plan? Stock firms/ public firms and are tied to wall street. Mom and pop sell no stock and compete with wall street titans, the reason wall street is anxious to end all small business in this country and their doing a pretty good job of that. Just walk down Kst in Georgtown DC and you'll know exaclty what I'm talking about. No bistros left, Starbucks, Gap stock firm have infiltrated pushing the little guys out.
This is about marriage, not about gov't backed retirment plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401%28k%29#History

you do not have to buy stocks with your 401k. it is a vehicle for you to save money without paying normal income tax on it. it is not a stock fund and was not created for the purchase of stocks. this was all explained to you on your last 401k thread. im only posting this so people dont get confused by your lack of understanding.

Banks love small companies. HP started in a shed, google in a college dorm or shortly after. Small companies are the next big companies and banks stumble over each other trying to find the next big thing. small successful companies are lavished with attention from banks hoping to gain their business. you are clueless about finance as evidenced by all your post.

Bond funds are a part of 401. Everyone knows that but a large percentage of money in 401's is invested in stocks or mutual funds. Of course you know all about banking and finance. Perhaps you could tell us why most all the banks are paying huge fines for fraud dealings?

i do not know all about banking and finance. I know enough to see your lack of understanding of the topic, however. this is evidenced by most of your posts and specifically your complete lack of understanding of 401k's. they are not funds of any kind create by brokerages as you incorrectly repeat. they are a form of pension plan created by the IRS. you are free to buy what you chose in them. You do not have to buy "stock companies" if you chose not too. Or any fund of any kind. perhaps you should read the link you posted earlier.

your ignorance is only slightly greater than your arrogance with hilarious results. thanks

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[OHCHUTE 0]

i do not know all about banking and finance. I know enough to see your lack of understanding of the topic, Per Weekender.

The topic is ending the institution of marriage.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

It could be replaced with: a simple contract between two humans and only two people,

Suggested long ago.Viable solution? I agree.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239