Mnemia: dreadprophet: Also, you're a presumptuous cock. Some of us put ourselves through college.

On top of that, college is MUCH more expensive now than when the Boomers were young. They benefited from government policies that made higher education affordable for the middle class, and then gutted those policies in exchange for lower taxes and made their kids take out student loans to pay for massively inflated education costs. So I'm not inclined to listen to any sort of wharrgarbl about how young people today have it easy on paying for college.

The GI Bill? You can still get that, just join the military.

TeleComplainer: This is complete and utter BS.

Respect your elders? Yeah. When you respect US. When you stop telling my wife and I we are raising our kids wrong. When you give back the 40k you stole from my college fund so you could buy yourselves a camper, simply because I went to Baylor U instead of the local U-Wisconsin campus.

Most of all, when you call once every other month biatching that we never call you. You know what? You have a phone too. Learn to use it. You want to know why we disprespect you? Because a good portion of you old farts out there, whether you want to beleive it or not, where VERY BAD PARENTS.

Wifey and I are starting the disowning process tommorrow to escape paying my mother's medical bills, that we know are huge because she can't stop talking about it after showing us her new $2000 tv or $3000 alienware computer she plays solitare on.

Good luck. I haven't talked to my mother/stepfather combo in over 10 years for similar emotional abuse / ranting raving loonbag dipshiat crazy behavior etc. It's unfortunate, but it beats the alternative (not having your own life).

DontTouchMyPeanuts: To whoever was asking if this is the law in Virginia: oh yeah it is. (new window)

um was repealed in 1992 ...
read the next page

ChrisPC: The GI Bill? You can still get that, just join the military.

No, not just the GI bill. I'm talking about lesser state government funding of higher education, which forces schools to raise tuition.

Gecko Gingrich: What about the Hunters and the Smokers?

Came for this. Leaving satisfied.

best troll of the thread winner: larrycot

I wonder how many of these felt it their constitutional right to have a Nintendo 64 in their bedrooms hooked up to a color television with cable. Some of these also wish their parents dead, today. 15 years ago they knew full well who was paying for tuition. They still know if times are really tough who they'll call first to ask for help. (Hint: it won't be a Generation X'er.)

Generation X was born 1964 thru 1978. The N64 was released in the fall of 1996. Meaning even the yougnest x-er's were at least 18 at the time and the vast majority had already graduated college at that point.

The "constitutional right" people you are referring to are Generation Y: Born 1979 thru 1997, many to older boomers who, after waking up from whatever haze they were under in the 70's, began overcompensating for the mistakes they made with their ignored first batch and creating the terms "helicoper parent"/"precious snowflake" in the process.

Generation Y thus far is known primarily for its sense of entitlement, inabilty to function without the internet, and the crappy music of the late 90's and 00's.

/rambling

Mayor Bee: I believe the Eskimos had it right. When an elder was no longer useful to the tribe, they willingly put themselves on an ice floe. This was done for the good of the whole tribe. We are not that much removed evolutionarily from the Eskimos that this should not still be the practice. If an elder is no longer producing more than he/she consumes and is not able to contribute in a satisfactory manner to the upbringing of later generations, the burden should be eliminated.

Which is why my current "retirement home" plan involves a loaded shotgun. When I'm old and decrepit, I'll be a corpse before I get tossed in a home.

fusillade762: If children can be held responsible for their parents debts can the parents be arrested if their children repeatedly break the law as minors?

This could get interesting.

I'm not sure if they could or not. But it seems stupid (again, doesn't mean they won't...)

Take a productive member of society (albiet a failure at parenting) and stick them in jail costing money not only to the tax payers to keep them in jail, but also costing money through the lack of productivity.

Meanwhile, the person actually causing the crimes is still running around causing crimes.

This is the definition of fail.

DrForrester: The legal concept of requiring children to support their parents predates colonial America.

"New," subby? Really?

The Native Americans were apparently hella hard on their kids.

"Brown Eagle died, but still owes Squatting Coyote three fish, a dog and two wives. Suck it up son."

/just havin' fun.
//native.

I remember reading somewhere (and I don't have a cite for this) that the concept of requiring children to pay the debts of their children dates back to Old Testament law. There was an exception, however: If the parent did not pay for the child to learn a trade, the child was exempt from his obligation to support his parent. Now back in the old days, that would mean paying to apprentice your son to a blacksmith or something. Basically, if you didn't care enough about your child to make sure they grew into productive adults, they weren't required to wipe you bum when you were old.

I wonder if such a loophole might apply today? "But I paid my own way through college, so I don't have to pay Mom's bills!"

tchamber: Yes, because that's all us baby boomers are looking to do with our lives - screw our kids.

Go and fark yourself, submitter. And stay the fark off my lawn.

Well you guys don't have the best track record in history. Let's see, you dragged your feet to fight for our country. You invented and helped Disco to become popular. You were yuppies in the 80's. You all bought SUVs and mcmansions in the 90's. You flipped homes and created the housing bubble; you pushed for high returns on securities that created the stock market to crash, bankrupt banks and put us into a recession that is almost as bad as the great depression. Great job, don't let the door to reality hit you on the way out.

uatuba: X-boxershorts: uatuba: X-boxershorts:

drivel


First of all, it's Keynesian. Secondly, his theory is based on the government working against the current economic conditions (increase taxes/cut certain programs when times are good and DECREASE taxes/increase certain programs when times are bad). You are boiling the theory down to deficit spending alone (which I said could be a good thing), but that is absolutely not all there is to it. His theory, as it applies to our current situation, is that deficit spending on labor and industry heavy infrastructure projects (not social programs) will help in a down economy.

I happen to agree. FDR took it too far by adding wasteful (and unsustainable) social programs. Because according to the Keynesian theory, we should have cut those programs when the economy rebounded. Furthermore, for you to assert that tax cuts--in and of themselves--are bad simply shows how little you know of Keynes' ideas. Tax cuts are appropriate and encouraged when the economy is down; tax increases are appropriate and encouraged when the economy is up.

You only read and absorbed that which you wanted to absorb.

Tax cuts are good, but not during a recession, they are contra-productive because revenue is being lost due to job loss. We are still very much in need of job stimulation. And will be for 2 more years. Bush and Congress screwed up badly. And the tax cuts Bush enacted did zilch for the economy. Thank God they were temporary.

The more baby boomers retire, the more much-touted personal responsibility is going to fly out the window and government debts are going to rack up.

Apparently the median value of retirement savings for people 55-64 is less than $100,000. I wonder how many of them opposed social security and will quickly change their mind? I wonder how many staunchly opposed public healthcare during their tax-paying years but will gladly have Medicare pay their bills during the years when they require the most care? In other words, how many small-government conservatives will be lining up for handouts when they enter their golden years with no savings?

Another angle of this whole thing is that many baby boomers just won't retire. I guess it's better than sucking on the government teat, but their kids and grandkids could use those jobs.

Weaver95: IronTom: But I agree, the kid should not nave to pay for the parents bills, that is a stupid idea

I've had a couple credit companies who keep trying to get me on the hook for dad's bills. it's proving interesting trying to sort out his estate.

I know a brother and sister out your way that are going through the same nightmare. Their father was a big time party boy in his day and never paid any bills. Now these two people are in jeopardy of losing their homes, pulling their kids out of college....just an awful situation. They seem to be getting a handle on this cluster fark, but it has aged them both before their time. Truly heart breaking.

Hope you situation works out OK.

pnjunction: better than sucking on the government teat

Because they're not taking money out of the system?
I'm going to go make a sweeping generalization that because they're already well-established in their positions, they feel no urge to innovate to seek promotion or to perform at any higher level than they normally do. The only thing that makes them work even a little harder is that the economy's not so good, and they know that even if they lose their job to a "lay-off" (dead weight first) they can get a job at another more healthy company with their amount of experience, even if it's just an entry-level job that "their kids and grandkids could use".
So yeah, maybe not so much with the better.

My personal experiances in life are such that I was raised by my grandparents and had no experiance with my biological parents. My grandparents are both deceased so this issue can never arise. I don't have any of the generational hatred that seems to be running through here today...I can say that I was treated better by my grandparents than a lot of my friends were by their conventional families. That could have been because of the circumstances and because my grandparents were exceptional people or it may have been the generational difference. What I think this thread shows quite well is that something is very wrong...boomers, if your kids hate you, theres something YOU did wrong. I don't know what switch got flipped but you can see it in pop culture and everything else...when did pop music stop being about proms and first loves and start being about abusive parents and suicide? When did we go from Johnny Horton to KoRn?

morgantx: I remember reading somewhere (and I don't have a cite for this) that the concept of requiring children to pay the debts of their children dates back to Old Testament law. There was an exception, however: If the parent did not pay for the child to learn a trade, the child was exempt from his obligation to support his parent. Now back in the old days, that would mean paying to apprentice your son to a blacksmith or something. Basically, if you didn't care enough about your child to make sure they grew into productive adults, they weren't required to wipe you bum when you were old.

I wonder if such a loophole might apply today? "But I paid my own way through college, so I don't have to pay Mom's bills!"

Thats another great example of how if the bible isn't taken literally, or chucked at someone else, it can be a great tool for how to live one's life in a responsible and reasonable manner

what a Boomer may look like

This kinda sucks.

Did anyone else notice that in the first part of the story they refer to the bill as $8k and in the latter half its $28k? Do I spot some reverse cop math?

Evilmogwai: This kinda sucks.

Did anyone else notice that in the first part of the story they refer to the bill as $8k and in the latter half its $28k? Do I spot some reverse cop math?


legal fees and unholy interest?

Firedust: What I think this thread shows quite well is that something is very wrong...boomers, if your kids hate you, theres something YOU did wrong. I don't know what switch got flipped but you can see it in pop culture and everything else...when did pop music stop being about proms and first loves and start being about abusive parents and suicide? When did we go from Johnny Horton to KoRn?


Ha, ha, ha. You, whippersnapper, know nothing about popular culture. The idea of suicide/death and destruction of youth started in the 1950s, with the Blackboard Jungle, where all the kids are seen as a menace, the Wild Bunch, and Rebel Without a Cause. And pop music? It went through a period of death and destruction from about the mid 50s through early 60s. Think about it: Tell Laura I Love Her (death by car wreck), Patches (suicide), Last Kiss (death by car wreck), Teen Angel (death by car wreck), Leader of the Pack (death by motorcycle accident/suicide), Running Bear and Little White Dove (drowning). Obviously, those World War II generation folks were terrible parents for all that to happen on their watch.

//Now get off my damn lawn.

Good things my folks live in Jersey. (well... not so good for them)

Loren: Weaver95: IronTom: But I agree, the kid should not nave to pay for the parents bills, that is a stupid idea

I've had a couple credit companies who keep trying to get me on the hook for dad's bills. it's proving interesting trying to sort out his estate.

The estate has to pay the bills before you get a penny.

Anyway, I thought debts couldn't pass from parent to child here. It seems to me this is unconstitutional.

Nothing in the constitution baring it, its not normally done as a matter of sound social policy. The chances for shenanigans abound.

1) Otherwise parents racking a large debt can break down the kids and if enough are saddled with their parents debt the you can crush the economy. It also puts a limit on how much credit will be extended to seniors if you can only go after the estate.

2) Puts an upper limit on the amount of shenanigans. Most kid don not manage their parents affairs. If creditor can go after the kids for payment it opens the door for all sort of games just short of fraud let alone actual fraud. Expensive often useless products and services to seniors is already big business.

morgantx: I remember reading somewhere (and I don't have a cite for this) that the concept of requiring children to pay the debts of their children dates back to Old Testament law. There was an exception, however: If the parent did not pay for the child to learn a trade, the child was exempt from his obligation to support his parent. Now back in the old days, that would mean paying to apprentice your son to a blacksmith or something. Basically, if you didn't care enough about your child to make sure they grew into productive adults, they weren't required to wipe you bum when you were old.

I wonder if such a loophole might apply today? "But I paid my own way through college, so I don't have to pay Mom's bills!"

I doubt the loop hole will be allowed. I hope other governments don't get any bright ideas. Going after the kids for the parents debt is bad social policy regardless of who is doing it, corporation, church or governments. Potential for abuse is monstrous. Going after the parents estate that's ok, going after the kids that's gonna lead to some serious bad karma.

larrycot: Wow. Lots of butt-hurt among the Generation X crowd today.

If you were born in the 70s or later, you've had it better than your parents did. If you went to college, 99% of you had at least some of that expense paid for by your parents.

Your reaction? Die soon, motherfarker.

Fortunately, the courts don't seem to agree with you. I weep for my grandchildren.

Dude there is a reason why estates are closed out at death. Potential for abuse and fraud is astronomical. Many countries have had similar laws on the books, they have either stopped enforcing them or repealed them because its bad social policy to stick the kids and grandkids with the bill for a spend thrift parent.

One person can wipe out 3 generations financially that way with ease. Creditors of all kinds would extend credit to an old fool knowing the kids and grand kids will be held to account. That's just the legal stuff, add in fraud and oh boy you have a massive mess.

My husband and I were born in 1976. I put myself through college. We're still paying it off. We're also raising young children, saving for retirement, etc.

We have already had the privilege of having my father stay with us, in our home, for about 6 months while he was in a bad spot. It is our pleasure as children to be able to care for our parents. If NOTHING else, we're teaching our children the way they should treat us when we are older.

That said, I'm still really pissed off at the boomers, as a whole, for the clusterfark they've left us. More than anything, I'm angry that they've destroyed institutions like Family and Church that were around for thousands of years, and that worked, before they came along and pissed all over them.

We have more parents than we deserve - my mom and step-dad, my dad, my dad's ex-second-wife, his dad and step-mom, his mom, his mom's ex-second-husband. We maintain a relationship with my ex-step-mother, but not really with his ex-step-father. Things would be a lot easier for everyone if they had just put their heads down and stayed married, but what's done is done. Now WE have to figure out how we could possibly take care of 7 or 8 aging parents. I'm 33, and it's already started (with my dad).

Complicated conversations with step-relatives as we try to figure out who is going to be responsible for whom. I think my step-sister will get my ex-step-mother. My brother and sister will get my mom and step-dad, I'll get my dad. We'll probably send my MIL out to my BIL when the time comes. We'll end up taking care of my FIL, but his evil wife can sleep in the barn as far as I care - I don't give a damn if they stay married, I will not have that woman in my house.

It's best to decide all this while everyone is mostly healthy - hilarity ensues when you're deciding who does what on the fly, when what needs to be done is imminent. I want to maintain good relationships with our siblings, and all the "experts" say that the way to do that is to divvy it up early, before anyone's really sick.

So, thanks, Boomers - parents - for farking up your marriages and leaving us to figure out how to proceed. Thanks for destroying the economy and the environment and everything else so that we'd have even more trouble taking care of you than we would have otherwise. I'll do my duty to you, because most of you (excluding step-MIL) are decent people. But I reserve the right to be a little pissed off at your generation, for not following the campsite rule.

You did not leave ANYTHING better than you found it.

Evil Twin Skippy: tb tibbles: Just out of curiosity,can a resident of Pennsylvania be forced to sell a house to pay off debts?

Don't give them any ideas!

They can't use that unless I get a cut. It's mine I tell ya!! ;)

ChrisPC: Wow... another Boomer hate thread.

They really ruined America, with stuff like equal rights, legalized abortion, birth control pills, ending the draft, and flying to the moon. Not to mention all that shiatty music like Hendrix, Clapton, and Led Zeppelin.

Damn, they suck!

/sarcasm

You forgot the DUI checkpoint, War on Drugs, zero tolerance policies, mandatory sentences, helicopter parenting; all this after they were perhaps the most hedonistic generation in the history of this country.

Yeah, thanks Boomers!

AnnOnymous: Complicated conversations with step-relatives as we try to figure out who is going to be responsible for whom. I think my step-sister will get my ex-step-mother. My brother and sister will get my mom and step-dad, I'll get my dad. We'll probably send my MIL out to my BIL when the time comes. We'll end up taking care of my FIL, but his evil wife can sleep in the barn as far as I care - I don't give a damn if they stay married, I will not have that woman in my house.

It's best to decide all this while everyone is mostly healthy - hilarity ensues when you're deciding who does what on the fly, when what needs to be done is imminent. I want to maintain good relationships with our siblings, and all the "experts" say that the way to do that is to divvy it up early, before anyone's really sick.

This is why I'm so very, very happy that I'm a youngest child married to another youngest child. DH & I discussed this last night. I know that I won't be responsible for my aging parents as my sister still lives in their hometown and is already caring for them (mom has had two strokes). My DH won't be responsible for his parents as his sister has already indicated a desire to care for them in their old age, so we're getting off scot-free!

My ex-husband, OTOH, was an oldest child, and now he's caring for his sick father. I got out of THAT one in just the nick of time.

Subby here. Just wanted to say thank you for my first greenlight on the main page.

The situation in PA seems wrong to me on many, many levels. Just wanted to bring attention and make sure that everyone who reads Fark is aware. Thank you for your time.

Currently reading: Generation Debt: Why Now Is A Terrible Time To Be Young by Anya K., and I just finished Christopher Buckley's Boomsday. If you haven't read either of these, I encourage you to give them a try.

Rather than descend into intergenerational warfare, can't we have a frank discussion of the things that are going wrong for all of us?

First, I think it's time to explore all of the SS / Medicare solutions (raising the taxes we pay, adjusting the benefits that Boomers receive so that they grow slower than inflation, and gradually raising the retirement age). We're looking down the barrel of an economic disaster of our own making. Inaction is not an option.

Asking Gen X and Gen Y to carry 30% SS tax burdens isn't going to work. Raising the retirement age to 80 in one fell swoop isn't going to work. Freezing COLA isn't going to work. Doing some combination of the above might save our system.

Second, can we get some economic policies that reward saving instead of consumption? Why would a rational person sacrifice short term spending (nights out, vacations, top end electronics) when their savings can be tapped to pay off debts of their parents? Why would anyone save for retirement when inflation is likely to dissolve their buying power faster than interest is to multiply it?

tchamber: Yes, because that's all us baby boomers are looking to do with our lives - screw our kids.

Go and fark yourself, submitter. And stay the fark off my lawn.

That is rather precisely what you have done in a generational way. Your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for your self-absorbed antics long after you are all gone. And even still you want to insert yourselves into matters that will affect future generations more than yourselves.

A lot of great comments here; thanks everybody.

As the kid of a boomer (28), I just sort of wonder where all this money is supposed to come from. We're all supposed to be good kids, go to college, get good jobs, have kids of our own, save for retirement, and take care of and respect our parents when the time comes. Many a snarky boomer has made that point clear already.

Now, most of us do as we're supposed to. But we don't get reliable pensions from our jobs anymore. We graduate with mountains of debt. Since nearly every couple needs 2 incomes to live, we can't afford to raise kids. And now we're supposed to take care of our enfeebled parents too? Show me the money!

In the old days, a person could afford an education, children, a retirement, a comfortable life, and taking care of parents. Now, most working adults can afford 2/5 of those. Maybe 3.

When it comes to aging parents, of course we're going to cut the dead wood. It's not like we have much of a choice.

Jesus, read the farking article - the Boomer son is not the one farking anyone over. His mother (who is 71, not a Boomer) is part of it, as is the state of Pennsylvania, per the article: "a little-known law dating to Elizabethan England suddenly being enforced with gusto in Pennsylvania"

Reading comprehension fail on the part of the submitter, if no one else has pointed it out. biatch about the "Boomers" all you want (and I'm not one, either), but they're not responsible for this bit of farkery.

I'm surprised no one has suggested this.

The answer is surprisingly simple. This man simply needs to refuse to pay. The bill will then go to his child. Her mission then is to have a child and, yes, you guessed it, refuse to pay. They can then try to collect from the baby.

/joking
//mostly

theoriginalslash: Jesus, read the farking article - the Boomer son is not the one farking anyone over. His mother (who is 71, not a Boomer) is part of it, as is the state of Pennsylvania, per the article: "a little-known law dating to Elizabethan England suddenly being enforced with gusto in Pennsylvania"

Reading comprehension fail on the part of the submitter, if no one else has pointed it out. biatch about the "Boomers" all you want (and I'm not one, either), but they're not responsible for this bit of farkery.


You left out the lawyers who are specializing in this.

Personally, I'd just classify them as Redcoat survivors and shoot them.

ciocia - Firedust: What I think this thread shows quite well is that something is very wrong...boomers, if your kids hate you, theres something YOU did wrong. I don't know what switch got flipped but you can see it in pop culture and everything else...when did pop music stop being about proms and first loves and start being about abusive parents and suicide? When did we go from Johnny Horton to KoRn?


Ha, ha, ha. You, whippersnapper, know nothing about popular culture. The idea of suicide/death and destruction of youth started in the 1950s, with the Blackboard Jungle, where all the kids are seen as a menace, the Wild Bunch, and Rebel Without a Cause. And pop music? It went through a period of death and destruction from about the mid 50s through early 60s. Think about it: Tell Laura I Love Her (death by car wreck), Patches (suicide), Last Kiss (death by car wreck), Teen Angel (death by car wreck), Leader of the Pack (death by motorcycle accident/suicide), Running Bear and Little White Dove (drowning). Obviously, those World War II generation folks were terrible parents for all that to happen on their watch.

//Now get off my damn lawn.


Those don't really count... They're just "Ballad of _______" type songs. The fact that songs of that type are considered so cheesy that they're only found in country anymore is more evidence of what Firedust is saying.

Youth then was less jaded and cynical and could be moved by such cloying, over the top, maudlin, tug at your heartstrings crap.

You have more of a point about movies like "Blackboard Jungle," or the 60's trend of movies like "Hot-Rod Hellions on the Highway" but they weren't expressions of youth's anger with their parents, they were expressions of then-parent's fear of youth.

I think Firedust makes a good point. What he's talking about is the popularity of songs, books, movies expressing the anger and mistrust kids feel towards the world in general and their parents in particular... and as highly-trained armchair psychologist, I'll offer my theory in one word.

Divorce.


Boomers are the first generation to get divorced in large numbers. They cast off the traditional notion of "sticking together for the kids" and replaced it with the very self-serving mantra of "if we're not happy, the kids won't be happy."

I can't stress enough the difference I see in my friends (Gen X-ers) whose parents were divorced versus those whose parents stayed together. (mine stayed together)

I think divorce is highly damaging to kids. When you break the one thing that, above all else, they're supposed to have faith in, take solace in, feel protected by... I think it creates very deep scars and dulls empathy and cultivates a profound cynicism and distrust in the reliability of other people.

RE Nocens 2009-07-13 12:07:54 PM
"You left out the lawyers who are specializing in this."

Yes, I did. Lawyers are involved, of course. Because if there's any class of people who know best how to fark us all, it's lawyers.

I don't see how laws of this nature are in any way enforceable, legal, etc. It's one thing if the mother was deceased and the hospital was trying to get money from her estate, but she's not. She's just a deadbeat and the hospital is trying to get money from anybody related to her. That sounds like some shiat that will not end well for anyone.

cmb53208: That out of the way, let this be proof that boomers have to be collectively the biggest assholes ever spawned. After all their hedonism in the 60's they gave us zero tolerance policies, mandatory sentences, amoking bans, and DUI checkpoints. Not content with that, they expect following generations to keep Medicare and Social Security solvent. Not even content with that, they'll stick their kids with their bills.

Just farking die already

I love the hypocrisy that they have. SEX, DRUGS, AND ROCK AND ROLL!!!1! Now it's Abstinence Only Sex Ed, Just Say No, and Hannah Montana.

stiletto_the_wise: This. The baby boomers, as a generation, have taken more--and given back less--than any generation in history. A hundred years from now, society will still be paying off the debt they've rung up, cleaning up the environmental mess they've made, and repairing the social damage their "Me! Me! ME!" attitudes have done to the entire world.

They are the only generation that hasn't done a damn thing to improve the country.

DIGITALgimpus: If you look at those who think Bernie Madoff is evil, vs those who think he was treated unfairly.... you'll see the same generational splits. Boomers interviewed on TV tend to be more sympathetic to "he was just providing for his family and got carried away" vs their children's "he's Satan and needs to be burned"

Lovely. The Boomers thing greed is good.

pnjunction: Apparently the median value of retirement savings for people 55-64 is less than $100,000. I wonder how many of them opposed social security and will quickly change their mind? I wonder how many staunchly opposed public healthcare during their tax-paying years but will gladly have Medicare pay their bills during the years when they require the most care? In other words, how many small-government conservatives will be lining up for handouts when they enter their golden years with no savings?

I totally agree. It's amazing to see how the lieberal hippies of the sixties grew up into the hypocratic conservatives of the 80s and yet oddly enough they love to suck off the government teat.

Another angle of this whole thing is that many baby boomers just won't retire. I guess it's better than sucking on the government teat, but their kids and grandkids could use those jobs.

But you have to understand, it's more important for these old geezers to hold onto their jobs rather then retire gracefully and let their kids or grandkids get a damn job.

theoriginalslash: RE Nocens 2009-07-13 12:07:54 PM
"You left out the lawyers who are specializing in this."

Yes, I did. Lawyers are involved, of course. Because if there's any class of people who know best how to fark us all, it's lawyers.

I don't see how laws of this nature are in any way enforceable, legal, etc. It's one thing if the mother was deceased and the hospital was trying to get money from her estate, but she's not. She's just a deadbeat and the hospital is trying to get money from anybody related to her. That sounds like some shiat that will not end well for anyone.



A judge letting them go through makes it legal. The slam on the kid's credit report makes it enforceable.

State laws made even before the country was founded are still legal and enforceable by the state unless they conflict with the Federal or State's subsequent Constitutions and subsequent laws.

The real question is, if it was an enforced law once upon time, how did something of this magnitude drop the cracks all these years? Something tells me it was probably repealed or revised to irrelevance and someone's going to have to find it in the law books before it can be contested.

It wouldn't be the first time an ancient law was found and drummed back to enforcement only to find it had later been repealed.

X-boxershorts: uatuba: X-boxershorts: uatuba: X-boxershorts:

drivel


First of all, it's Keynesian. Secondly, his theory is based on the government working against the current economic conditions (increase taxes/cut certain programs when times are good and DECREASE taxes/increase certain programs when times are bad). You are boiling the theory down to deficit spending alone (which I said could be a good thing), but that is absolutely not all there is to it. His theory, as it applies to our current situation, is that deficit spending on labor and industry heavy infrastructure projects (not social programs) will help in a down economy.

I happen to agree. FDR took it too far by adding wasteful (and unsustainable) social programs. Because according to the Keynesian theory, we should have cut those programs when the economy rebounded. Furthermore, for you to assert that tax cuts--in and of themselves--are bad simply shows how little you know of Keynes' ideas. Tax cuts are appropriate and encouraged when the economy is down; tax increases are appropriate and encouraged when the economy is up.

You only read and absorbed that which you wanted to absorb.

Tax cuts are good, but not during a recession, they are contra-productive because revenue is being lost due to job loss. We are still very much in need of job stimulation. And will be for 2 more years. Bush and Congress screwed up badly. And the tax cuts Bush enacted did zilch for the economy. Thank God they were temporary.

If you say tax cuts are bad during a recession, then you are not a follower of the Keynesian theory.

"There are three or four major lawyers in Pennsylvania who specialize in representing nursing homes and hospitals, and one of their favorite tools is Pennsylvania's filial statute."



Easy fix.

I love my parents but hate the Baby Boomer generation as a whole.

RE Nocens 2009-07-13 12:50:03 PM
"Something tells me it was probably repealed or revised to irrelevance and someone's going to have to find it in the law books before it can be contested. It wouldn't be the first time an ancient law was found and drummed back to enforcement only to find it had later been repealed."

Hopefully, it will be that easy. The law is some tricky shiat.

This thread needs more Grace Park.



/would let her screw with me all night long.

ChuckyV: AnnoyingKidNextDoor: I'm confused.

Fark told me that drinking and unlimited sex was good. Unless you bore offspring. Fark also told me this is because children were scum of the earth

Now Fark tells me that old people are worthless, and children (or former children) are getting screwed. Why is this?

Or maybe Fark has been telling me that every generation except your own must be destroyed.



/RenewONe of my all time favorite movies...

eas81: EdgeRunner:

coca cola light? I have NEVER seen that before.

Firedust: I don't know what switch got flipped but you can see it in pop culture and everything else...when did pop music stop being about proms and first loves and start being about abusive parents and suicide?

Maybe pop culture is driving this insane hatred. You hear all that stuff about hate on the radio in the music, especially about hating parents, and you see TV shows: 10 things I hate about you. The media sees it can make money off of this, and some limp-brained listeners, say "Yeah, yeah, yeah, I hate my parents too, this is soooo cool!""

technicolor-misfit:

No, boomers weren't the first to divorce in large numbers:



There was a big uptick after WWI, then a lull for awhile, then it started going up in 1970 (when the first of the boomers would be all of 24 or 25), then rose through the 70s, and dropped off in the 1980s. It's still much higher than it was in the 1940s, but lower than in the 80s.

But the divorce rate in the U.S. has been rising throughout our history:

The history of divorce in the US is characterized by steadily rising rates between 1860 and 1930; it is possible that this steady long-term trend reflects structural shifts in society and that the swings associated with the 1930s, 1940s, and 1960s and 1970s represent fluctuations from this long-term trend.

From: Link (new window)

So, it's not the wicked boomers, it's a trend over about a century and a half. The truth is, people live longer, get sick of each other more, and that the social stigma of divorce and the financial dependence of women are both a lot less than they used to be. Now, the rate is falling off, most likely because people are marrying at later ages than they used to. As the article points out, marrying at a later date lessens the risk of divorce.

I just noticed--divorce went up all through the 60s, too, when the oldest boomers were still teens and in college. Gee, those selfish boomers were divorcing young then.
/sarcasm off.

Based on the graph you posted, the divorce rate spiked after WWII, not WWI. Graph-reading and history, FTW. Divorces after such a horrible war are certainly understandable.

However, the long-term escalation of divorces started in 1965 as you stated...that's when the boomers were in their hippy, overly-rebellious, make things difficult on everyone stage. If ever a generation's kids were to blame for the divorce rate, the boomers would be a good choice.