Lucky...

I think it's presumed as one of those things that the hubby would have to prove he isn't liable for, rather than the creditors prove he is. They're married, it's communuty property / community debt; they would go ahead and garnish until the courts told them to stop. Who knows, I could see the courts assign him as a debtor, even tho it's against most civil laws. Sure, the paintiff/creditor has to prove the jurisdiction, parties, debt, etc. Many times people default in court, of course that's their problem, but it happens and the debt is assumed owed by both parties. Also, we don't know all 50 states and how they rule (thru statute or precedence) on these issues. Does time mater, as in time married? It may very well be that after X years of marriage they all meld together. I understand that in Cali after 10 years of marriage and at least 1 child that lifetime vaginamony is is statuted. So there is so much we don't know about all 50 state's laws regarding debt in marrital/premarital matters. Sure, but it seems that the courts give a lot more lattitude to creditors. I could see the courts assinging the debt to both people and making it the burden of the husband in this case to get a judgment within a possible divorce decree that the debt is hers. You want to enjoy the privs of marriage, you have to endure the BS too. This is why marriage is so dangerous, as it makes 2 people liable for 1 person's debt. True in part, but the counter-arg would be that they commingled their money, they still do so where is this imaginary line that divides his money from hers, hers from his? A spouse can refuse to testify against his/her spouse as a benefit, so the burden is that their money is also community. Whether statuted or not, I bet the longer they are married, the more any debt becomes more mutual. I don't think so, esp in Nazizona. Also, there are a lot more things besides income that can be levied/liened, garnished besides income.

His name becomes her name and the debts follow and mutiality becomes the norm in community debt. Again, it could be unfucked, but the burden would then fall on him to establish this. OK, so the creditor gets a summary judgment upon any default of the loan and then pursues. No default, no judgment and no issue, other than all of her income goes to pay the laon and all of hio income goes to pay the bills = no fun. Sure, I was paraphasing: - Garnish accounts - Garnish wages (if allowed) - Place on file with the county recorder the judgment (if there is a default) so either cannot transfer out a house/real property w/o satisfying the debt - Lien any property

She's a professional student. She's thetype who takes fun classes and when she wants to stop, ste can't as the debt would then start to tick and accrue interest. She sounds like a very imprudent chick.

In some jurisdictions (like mine in VA where I got divorced) even student loan debt accumulated during the marriage is presumed to belong to the person who got the education. I think it's presumed as one of those things that the hubby would have to prove he isn't liable for, rather than the creditors prove he is. They're married, it's communuty property / community debt; they would go ahead and garnish until the courts told them to stop. Who knows, I could see the courts assign him as a debtor, even tho it's against most civil laws.

He still wanted the milk w/o buyng the cow; he sounds pretty smart to me.

No, retarded is what most people are w/o debt / degrees.

Yes, but even that really isn't necessary (I think). I'm pretty sure that in most jurisdictions he wouldn't have assumed (i.e., shared) the pre-marital debt/responsibility anyway merely by virtue of his post loan marriage to the borrower. The general rule is that a person has no automatic responsibility for a spouse's pre-marital debt. That being said, there's certainly no harm in a pre-nup; I'm a big fan of them. *Edit: the fact that he wouldn't legally have been personally responsible for her debt may be beside the point in his mind, since in practical effect her debt would still have been a financial burden on their mutual household/finances. Right. 1) Prenups lay a big bummer on a "regular" marriage 2) All her $$ would go to pay off the loan, his to pay the bills 3) Creditors would still try to garnish his pay and could be successful 4) Aint love grand? Love comes with conditions.

It's still ok to burn the Quran, Bible or American flag, it's just not prudent to do so this publicly when Americans/troops are at risk. This loon could have privately done this, but he's an attention whore and that's the problem.

It's still Bush's fault, Clinton still did it first, and Obama still can't stop any of it. Take that!!! Except Obama will try to spend his way out of debt. And Hoover/McSame would cut taxes out of debt.

And the original post blamed it on conservatives - you liberals are still the champions. Who wants to empower corporate America?

Is that because they haven't lowered it yet? I don't believe that there's even accessible HC plans for much of the country yet. While this is by no means a great plan, I do think that access to HC will reduce a lot of people's costs in the long run, just as regular maintenance on your car can reduce car costs in the long run. Of course, taking care of our bodies in the first place does an even better job , but who wants to eat right and exercise Wendy P. This is a ridiculous rendering from Rushy, the provisions don't kick in until 2014; then we have to wait to see if they do lower the deficit.

____________________________________ Glenn Beck draws 300-400 thousand people to a peaceful non political rally and the progressives look for anything to make this look bad...got it.. Yea, only a true neo-con could think lying is honorable. Well, we have yet to see you show you think otherwise with you tingly leg support of Obama Show me his lies. How about the 2 biggies 1 HC will lower the deficit 2 HC will lower insurance or HC costs Ruskeepoo, hate to bust your bubble, but the main provisions don't kik in until 2014 and even then, AFTER they kick in and are allowed to implement, if they don't do as promised, then you have to prove he did so out of deceit. So try again, show me his lies; we'll start again.

____________________________________ Glenn Beck draws 300-400 thousand people to a peaceful non political rally and the progressives look for anything to make this look bad...got it.. Yea, only a true neo-con could think lying is honorable. Well, we have yet to see you show you think otherwise with you tingly leg support of Obama Show me his lies.

I've seen what is obvious prosecution and defense counsel working together in public defender cases.

So since you bring up a good point... Section F of the ATF form asks, "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" First, he has PTSD which is a recognized mental illness for which certain behaviors cannot be determined... future violence, future drug use, etc. etc. First, the VA did not turn him in to ATF, he took a gun out of a pawn shop which warrants a new ATF form 4473 for transference of ownership. The form is what tripped him up. From my perspective, there is no harm done here. And, he should accept that he has a mental illness. Of issue to me is the ATF stating that he cannot have a gun in his home. To me, the real issue is his wife's right to bear arms. Are they saying that she cannot get a CCW and if so that is a greater threat to her constitutional rights, personal safety, etc. I agree with the first part, once he recovers he can then posess a gun. As for his wife having one, that's a tricky issue. If a woman is married to felon, can she own a gun? I mean if the ATF says person X can't be in posession of a gun then they shouldn't be allowed to be near one.

Let me clarify for those not able to understand obvious inferrence. He doesn't have to have a violent past recorded in psych, court or other record in order to be dtermined below the threshold. Right and you interpreted that mean gun nuts in here. Thik globally, grasshopper. There is a world outside of here, in spite of the fact that you're here almost every waking momnent. Again, I can reference people outside of DZ.COM, apparently you cannot. No where did I say anything about gun nuts in DZ.COM, I simply said, "some." Furthermore, I'm a gun nut in here, so there's 1. Altho I'm huge for 2nd rights, there has to be and there are limits.

Unsurprising. Calling GM and Chrysler....GM and Chrysler to a red courtesy phone, please... You're not looking at the entire picture. In particular promoting piece of shit cars. Quite obviously, neither are you. GM, $73.26/hour total labor cost in 2006. Ford, $70.51/hour. (From Business Week, ca. 2007) From CNN(ca. 2007) WOW, $73 to $70; my you make a great semantic argument. So this is why Ford didn't need the bailout and GM did? And as for your comparison to Japanese makers costs, I wonder what kind of medical program they have over there? Great arguments.

And if they are incarcerrated for life the same occurrs other than jailhouse killings. BTW, don't confuse your little ditty with deterrence, for that must have the element of choice.

I know, we should have learned from Enron and that fucking the working people is far better and cheaper; I'm with you Rushy.

Not to mention high taxes during those years requiring reinvestment vs profit-taking.

Yea, it's not like they're stealing our HC and raiding our pensions or anything; god damned unions and their veracity to still want labor day paid. Earth to Kennedy: WE ARE FUCKING BANKRUPT UNDER YOUR HERO, FASCIST RONNIE AND GWB. Yes, corporate greed and lack of tariffs. Don't worry, just elect more R's and our dollar will be so devalued that manufacturing will come back via default. And if taxes remain low, corporations and the rich will continue to profit take and ice the econo0my, driving down wages, their real agenda. Oh, show me where the D's have jacked up the debt. Show me market growth and Real GDP growth under R's vs D's. Yes please, let's talk economy and the parties footprint on it.

Look at my profile, it's just for fun. I guess 2003 was the last because kiddy DP was repealed via the SCOTUS shortly after that. It was 16 and 17 YO's only, no younger. At that time of repeal, we had executed 19 of the prevuous 38 known kiddy executions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States Since 1642 (in the 13 colonies, the United States under the Articles of Confederation, and the current United States) an estimated 364 juvenile offenders have been put to death by states and the federal government. The earliest known execution of a prisoner for crimes committed as a juvenile was Thomas Graunger in 1642. Twenty-two of the executions occurred after 1976, in seven states. Due to the slow process of appeals, it was highly unusual for a condemned person to be under 18 at the time of execution. The youngest person to be executed in the 20th century was George Stinney, electrocuted in South Carolina at the age of 14, June 16, 1944. The last execution of a juvenile may have been Leonard Shockley, who died in the Maryland gas chamber April 10, 1959, at the age of 17. No one has been under age 19 at time of execution since at least 1964.[80][81] Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, 22 people have been executed for crimes committed under the age of 18. 21 were 17 at the time of the crime. The last person to be executed for a crime committed as a juvenile was Scott Hain April 3, 2003 in Oklahoma.[82] Before 2005, of the 38 U.S. states that allow capital punishment: 19 states and the federal government had set a minimum age of 18, Five states had set a minimum age of 17, and 14 states had explicitly set a minimum age of 16, or were subject to the Supreme Court's imposition of that minimum. 16 was held to be the minimum permissible age in the 1988 Supreme Court of the United States decision of Thompson v. Oklahoma. The Supreme Court, considering the case Roper v. Simmons, in March 2005, found execution of juvenile offenders unconstitutional by a 5–4 margin, effectively raising the minimum permissible age to 18. State laws have not been updated to conform with this decision. Under the US system, unconstitutional laws do not need to be repealed, but are instead held to be unenforceable. (See also List of juvenile offenders executed in the United States) 2005 it was repealed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons Agreed, don;t forget serving and dying in the military. Yea, the ole balance thing. I think the DP is a waste all the way around, life w/o parole is fine and no irreversable error can occur.

Exactly, but some feel 50 dead at a maall is better than 1 man's rights being suspended until he recovers. You don't have to be violent to have your 2nd pulled, just below the capacity threshold. Um, where did I say that any of the gun nuts are ok with it? You're losing it, Mike; should we have your capacity checked? I am not for gun control in the context that you are stating, in fact I wish full autos were legal w/o a class 3, so keep the guise going. Until then, show where I said that other gun nits are ok with his 2nd suspension.

Thanks for that, it was helpful.

If ya talk about company of countrie sthat executed kids as we did not so long ago: China Democratic Republic of Congo Iran Nigeria Pakistan Saudi Arabia United States Yemen As of 2004 whne we shortly after abolished that.