patrick.net

Move to Yucca Valley CA and live the good life with adopted horses and dogs. Rent is more expensive than a mortgage.

The Climate is nice movie stars and artists live here only 40 min.
to Palm Springs at 3500-4000 ft. elevation. Best schools here.

Steepest line on this chart is the late 1970s:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12500000

"stagflation" my ass.

Bellingham Bill says

Steepest line on this chart is the late 1970s:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12500000

"stagflation" my ass.

OK, your ass then:

http://uneasymoney.com/2012/06/18/1970s-stagflation/

Now let's address if the mother keeps a baby. $94,100 is the basic cost of raising a child born in 2013, from birth to 18 years old, according to Wikipedia. Actual average cost for a single parent with income under $60k is $157,10, and over $60k is $333,420.

Please tell me how is a single parent is supposed to effectively parent the child, which is a full-time 24/7 job, as any parent will tell you, and at the same time come up with that amount of cash over 18 years without the help of another income producing adult or government assistance?

I do not believe any man is legally obligated to a women to pay for her if she just has a child of his. Alimony is a different issue, which by the way, now often works both ways.

I know single moms raise their kids without any financial help from the father all over the country, but the children suffer. Mothers absolutely are taking responsibility for their children. This is pretty basic concept, so...

I am starting to wonder if you are really upset about the fact that women get to choose whether or not they have a baby? Or maybe this has to do with envy of the female ability to create life within their bodies...and the fact that men's physical active part of the creation process ends with the sexual act (although the sperm lives on and transforms)?..just musing on why this is so upsetting for you, (this is not an attack).

Indiana Jones says

Please tell me how is a single parent is supposed to effectively parent the child, which is a full-time 24/7 job, as any parent will tell you, and at the same time come up with that amount of cash over 18 years without the help of another income producing adult or government assistance?

That's why single parenthood without proof of means (including help from a willing partner, who may or may not have any biological link to the child) should not be encouraged or even allowed. Planning to raise a child with certain knowledge of lack of means is a crime against either the unborn child or the taxpayers or the unwilling father (who may have been equally drunk at the time of intercourse but has the mental clarity not to give birth to the child).

Of course, actually having a government that means-test each pregnant woman would be way too interventionist (and giving rise for massive bribery opportunities for bureaucrats enforcing such laws), so the solution is no law enforcing tax payer subsidy or support from unwilling partners, so the woman (and her family and friends giving advice) would have a chance to come to rational decision during pregnancy and be prepared to do it alone if they insist. Yes, the biological urge for a woman to keep her fetus is strong due to historical evolutionary reasons . . . however it is no more valid justification in a modern society than for a man to rape as many women as possible in order to spread his genes, also due to historical evolutionary reasons.

Indiana Jones says

Now let's address if the mother keeps a baby. $94,100 is the basic cost of
raising a child born in 2013, from birth to 18 years old, according to
Wikipedia. Actual average cost for a single parent with income under $60k is
$157,10, and over $60k is $333,420.

Please tell me how is a single parent is supposed to effectively parent the
child, which is a full-time 24/7 job, as any parent will tell you, and at the
same time come up with that amount of cash over 18 years without the help of
another income producing adult or government assistance?

Who forced her to have kids? Like Octomom who had six and then went and had eight-now the whole state of CA is supporting her.

Forcing a father to pay half expenses -basic only is fine. Any more is feminist propoganda. There are people paying 50k a month in child support and they get no say in how the money is spent-or saved for a rainy day. In many places feminists have fought and changed laws to allow for palimony-where a man has to pay because he had a relationship with a woman -not even married. Then you wonder why people call modern woman whores?
Despite calims to the contrary-alimony goes from men to women in 97% of cases.

Yes the laws are the problem-but it is feminists that pushed for this and now there is pushback, they are freaking out that men are wising up and actually asking them to be equal-you know be responsible for their own lives??

That is all I ask as a man. You wanted equal opportunity-here it is yours and accept equal responsibility and quit whining about men holding you down in 2013 . I see plenty of drunk men complaining and claiming that if only the system was different they would be Bill gates. Well meg Whitman became a billionare before any equal pay law -that is what nitwit feminists don't understand. There is no such thing as equal pay-you fight and achieve what you want not pass a law and sing Kumbayah. Plenty of men get paid different for doing the same thing.

But useless talking to western feminist women. They want the man to serve up everything, just come for the ride, not fall at all and if they fail blame it on men and pass a law demanding some other crap from men. The only men who suffer are responsible men-but that is actually true for most people in this country. The Romneys and the Obamas thrive while lying and swinding and the poor live off us-demonizing the very people they live off of.

MershedPerturders says

If the guy is wealthy, suddenly her maternal instincts are going strong. If the guy is poor, it's a 'blob of cells'.

Which goes along with the fact that our right wing controlled government does not want to be in the business of supporting children. To the extent that our government does support some children, these are the ones living in the worst neighborhoods with many terrible influences and poor diet.

We're talking about the same children that make our public education statistics look bad. Which in turn causes the plutocrats and corporations to rail against teacher unions.

But that's really just code -> translation: "we don't even want to support poor children as much as we are now !!

(not that teachers and money to schools solves the problem of children of poor parents (often poor parents in multiple ways))

marcus says

Which goes along with the fact that our right wing controlled government does not want to be in the business of supporting children. To the extent that our government does support some children, these are the ones living in the worst neighborhoods with many terrible influences and poor diet.

Godwin's law strikes again. The government does not have the money to support those children, it's completely useless to make this a partisan issue. The US is nearly bankrupt and if somebody would say they will pay for those kids and do good they would be lying as the money for that would come from the middle class again, creating more poverty. The responsibility has to be shared by both, man and woman, there is no other way. The only way to benefit future generations is to stop raising the country's debt which will have to be payed back by them in taxes (or other wealth confiscation measures).

marcus says

(not that teachers and money to schools solves the problem of children of poor parents (often poor parents in multiple ways))

No kidding! Such policies are called supporting failures and encouraging failures! Guess where the government gets its resources to provide such "support" (after bureaucrats take their own cuts)? It's taken from the more self-sufficient parents who otherwise would be able to have more children and pay for better nutrition and better education on their own! The resources that would otherwise have been able to nourish and support the next generation is being wasted on the vacation houses and boats for the bureaucrats and the beers and pot for the loser "parents" who have never matured enough to take on the responsibility of parenting to begin with . . . all thanks to silly government policies that subsidizes failure and bureaucratic skulldudgery while penalizing success and self-reliance.

While I'm all for the liberty of individual putting whatever in his/her own body, but is it any wonder that if we as a society keep encouraging children conceived in drugged haze and carried in uteri circulating with alcohol, nicotine and numerous drugs, and then fed with equally tainted human milk . . . while destroying the middle class' and upper-middle class' chance to raise their own babies in much better environment by taxing them . . . is there any wonder the society is trending towards idiocracy?

This thread is the reason I miss getting high. It'd be easier to read.

It's easy enough to not have kids. Just get a vasectomy. You don't have to tell whomever you are dating that you have got that done, unless you think that they would like that. If woman find it acceptable to "oops" a man, then it's perfectly acceptable to date a woman who wants kids and conveniently omit the fact that you are fixed.

zzyzzx says

It's easy enough to not have kids. Just get a vasectomy. You don't have to tell whomever you are dating that you have got that done, unless you think that they would like that. If woman find it acceptable to "oops" a man, then it's perfectly acceptable to data a woman who wants kids and conveniently omit the fact that you are fixed.

One word of caution: if you date long enough and she gets pregnant from another dude you may still be somewhat on the hook, even after a DNA test ;)

Snipping yourself doesn't help avoid tax slavery to support losers having their loser children who have high propensity to become criminals in the future.

I'd support mandatory snipping for fathers who get woman pregnant but don't cough up at least $6k/yr (roughly half of the $200k over 18 years that it takes to raise a child). Both the father and the mother need to be fixed if they don't have the means to raise a child but insist on having one. Their action is either gross negligence to the child or planned robbery on their neighbors.

Having a child should not be an alternative form of employment paid for by taxpayers. Both the children and the society are harmed by those irresponsible parents.

elliemae says

This thread is the reason I miss getting high. It'd be easier to read.

Drug-addled termagant!

See: All women are drug addicts!

Women are just not cost-effective...

mell says

One word of caution: if you date long enough and she gets pregnant from another dude you may still be somewhat on the hook, even after a DNA test ;)

In that case, get a pre-natal DNA test. Don't wait till the child is born. If the result shows it's not yours, get her out of your life ASAP so she can make a rational decision with the biological father.

No worries, we can build more prisons to stimulate the economy and house the mongrels. Everyone wins.

Just carry around a contract, next to the rubber in your wallet, that states that you do not want children with the woman you are about to have relations with and if any should come of this union, you will not pay for them.

mell says

One word of caution: if you date long enough and she gets pregnant from another dude you may still be somewhat on the hook, even after a DNA test ;)

True, buy that's pretty rare. If something like that were to happen to me I'd liquidate my assets and move to another country.

robertoaribas says

not due to any magical central bank action.

Really Bob? Lending in Emerging Markets is just business as usual?

Quigley says

We could take care of every child in America with a quarter of the money we spend on defense, now at 48% of the national budget. Oh and it's not all jet planes and warships and troops. The largest part now goes to spying and homeland security, which is domestic spying and keeping citizens under the Federal boot.

That surely is true, but unfortunately will likely never happen (i.e. significantly reducing the defense budget).

robertoaribas says

David Losh says

Show me in history where Central Banking has had such a key role in a global economic recovery.

I can show you where it didn't: the great depression.

and your point is that the Protection period before WWII was some how related to a global economic recovery by the Central Banking system, or not.

Really Bob, you seem to be losing it lately.

mell says

The government does not have the money to support those children

Okay. But then why do those who feel most strongly about this, also want the government to make abortion illegal ?

humanity says

mell says

The government does not have the money to support those children

Okay. But then why do those who feel most strongly about this, also want the government to make abortion illegal ?

That's a difficult topic. Likely a lot of religious "beliefs". However leaving religion out, IMO the law should be equally and at whatever point the offspring is considered a human being killing a human being is what it is, no matter how old or dependent that human being is and that cannot be trumped by financial considerations. The child has no saying/vote.

Abortion should be mandatory if either parent doesn't want the kid, and legal up to age 6.

Do people really think generations of any family raised on dependency on government bureaucracy would vote for less government control, less wasteful spending or less surveilence? Liberty is the choice by a people still exercising some degree of self-reliance and self-control. The more people live off imperial bread and circus, the less liberty there will be left in the society.

I'm not at all against raising children. The real issue is raising what kind of children in what kind of families. Since as a society we already decided not to become like ancient Sparta, and rip all children from all families to train them at government-run military academies, the family environment (including prenatal and postnatal nutrition and substance exposure) is fundamental to the healthy upbringing of a child even if you don't believe parental genes make a difference. Our existing policies in taxing middle class and upper-middle class families who need the resources to raise their own children in better environment and waste it on overpaid bureaucrats and incompetent drug abusers who use reproduction as a way of living on government dough is really quite reprehensible and in the long run suicidal for the society itself.

robertoaribas says

you lack the intelligence and / or education to understand 90% of what I write;

I should have stopped right there, but you are amusing.

Forty years of involvement with all things Real Estate Bob, that's what I bring to the table.

I don't clean floors Bob, I'm a business owner.

You are on summer break from your job I take it, so you have more time to waste, and brag, and insult, because that is the sum total of what you bring to the table.

You never have anything to say other than you are a genius, then demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the Real Estate business, Bob.

My house is above water Bob, and building equity a few home improvements, very reasonably priced Bob, less than what you spend, but I get a lot more.

I make money Bob, every day.

In my world Bob, guys like you are a dime, and dozen, I've made plenty of people more money.

Now what is it you do?

You don't have a point here Bob, as usual.

Heraclitusstudent says

So if you think the building fell because of fire or because of debris, you do need to explain how the 3 points above are possible.

Ugh. Your first "point" (#1) is false: there was resistance, but not enough to stop a downward moving tower. The towers fell straight down because gravity pulls straight down, toward the center of the earth. When the fires weakened the structural steel, it lost strength and bent like dry spaghetti that's been steamed. The floors above the fire came down, following the path of gravity, and the downward force of their momentum exceeded the design strength of the lower floors.

jessica says

Not even if it was notarized? Nothing says romance like a little contracting and notarizing.

Not even then - even prenups or portions thereof get thrown out frequently.

he he he Californians talking about Women having babies.
They almost sound as ridiculous as Republicans talking about Women NOT having babies.

mell says

jessica says

Not even if it was notarized? Nothing says romance like a little contracting and notarizing.

Not even then - even prenups or portions thereof get thrown out frequently.

That's surprising to me. I think every marriage contract should literally be a binding contract but include all points of interest to each party, i.e. child support, infidelity clauses and as much else as you can fit in there.

Yea ok, I guess I agree with you since you've now qualified your statement with a marriage clause.

Reality says

roughly half of the $200k over 18 years that it takes to raise a child

Um, the Millennials have demonstrated that it now takes 32 years to raise a child.

lostand confused says

Then you wonder why people call modern woman whores?

I don't know anybody that calls modern women whores. You are a creep.

mell says

So do I. Just not married (until the system changes), still a decent dad ;)

It's really nobody's business whether you and your partner are "married". There's already plenty enough legal protections for kids.

jessica says

lostand confused says

Then you wonder why people call modern woman whores?

I don't know anybody that calls modern women whores. You are a creep.

Who's the one who's "lost and confused"?

jessica says

lostand confused says

Then you wonder why people call modern woman whores?

I don't know anybody that calls modern women whores. You are a creep.

What's wrong with whores? They make an honest living, unlike bankers, lawyers, real estate agents, politicians, and anyone in the finance industry.

What's wrong with whores is the underage ones who are kidnapped and/or trafficked into that occupation.

Dan8267 says

jessica says

lostand confused says

Then you wonder why people call modern woman whores?

I don't know anybody that calls modern women whores. You are a creep.

What's wrong with whores? They make an honest living, unlike bankers, lawyers, real estate agents, politicians, and anyone in the finance industry.

Fully agreed.

curious2 says

Heraclitusstudent says

So if you think the building fell because of fire or because of debris, you do need to explain how the 3 points above are possible.

Ugh. Your first "point" (#1) is false: there was resistance, but not enough to stop a downward moving tower. The towers fell straight down because gravity pulls straight down, toward the center of the earth.

- I'm talking specifically of WTC7. I won't argue about the other towers.
- Look at the video of it falling: measure the acceleration frame to frame: it is basically free fall, which wouldn't be the case if there was *any* resistance. This is not a question of whether it fell or not. The acceleration of the fall indicates there was no resistance.

curious2 says

When the fires weakened the structural steel, it lost strength and bent like dry spaghetti that's been steamed.

- Fine the fire can weaken columns. How many columns? 2, 5, 10 Probably not all of them. Even if some columns broke after being weakened, they would never ALL break at the same exact instant. As a result part of the building would collapse and maybe pull more as it falls. This is not what we are seeing: the fall is symmetric, which indicates that all the columns failed at the same instant.
- And as explained above, not only they failed, but they offered no resistance at all. If they were just weakened, at least some of them would offer some resistance. Instead it's like all columns just disappeared at the same second.

These facts are basically physically impossible just with a fire in the building.

B.A.C.A.H. says

What's wrong with whores is the underage ones who are kidnapped and/or trafficked into that occupation.

Forcing anybody to do anything against their will is wrong and usually unlawful, as long as the person being forced is not the infringer in the first place. So there is no need to special case human trafficking or kidnapping, for whatever reason.