If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Magazine)   The GOP claim that "spending is out of control" sounds like a rational argument, until you fact-check it   (nymag.com) divider line 472
    More: Interesting, GOP, Republican, Jim VandeHei, Boehner  
•       •       •

5806 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Dec 2012 at 12:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



472 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-13 05:39:06 PM

MattStafford: Deflation when caused as a result of an increase in technology and production is a good thing.


But that hasn't happened in the last... what... 50 years? 100?

You could probably describe the last 200 years as one continuous deflation spiral. Evidence: Stagnation in wages and a reduction in aggregate demand has coincided with every increase in the buying power of a dollar in US history.

Further. Globalization is a HUGE game changer when we talk about "money".
 
2012-12-13 05:40:21 PM

justinguarini4ever: jst3p: namatad: AUSTERITY!!

Yeah, lets go with the method that has proven to make things worse.

Link

Greece wouldn't be in their crisis if even showed an iota of fiscal responsibility. Bringing up Greece in this argument is not exactly helpful to your argument.


Austerity is not the only way to achieve fiscal responsibility, and when times are tough it seems to make things worse. We need to roll back the Bush/Obama tax cuts, put them back at Clinton levels. Create new tax brackets at 1,000,0000 and 50,000,000 (40% and 45%) and roll back the top bracket 2013. Roll back another bracket every year till they are all fixed. Obama is already cutting, but cutting alone wont get the job done.
 
2012-12-13 05:41:04 PM

MattStafford: Mrtraveler01: That depends, am I going to abandon my principles just so I can have my share of the pie too?

Speaking of abortions...that analogy was a good example of one.

No, that analogy was actually pretty much spot on to what is happening. Would you try and get some of that money back, or would you let the rest of us split it up? And if you did try to get some of that money back, would you consider yourself a hypocrite?

Unless you answer those questions, you aren't trying to have a serious debate right now, and are just as bad as any of the right wing commentators you love so much to rail against. Holding onto partisan beliefs just because they are beliefs your side has, regardless of the intellectual honesty behind those beliefs.


Your analogy doesn't work well. If you were going to have everyone throw in twenty bucks, fine. And if you were going to borrow another 200, fine. If I voted against it all to begin with, I would be a hypocrite to make a grab for the money "because it's going to be spent anyway". Why? Because as an elected representative - one who was elected on the principle of bringing down the deficit and cutting government spending - I should be using EVERY opportunity to cut spending. If I'm attaching riders to popular bills, then to stay within my elected principles, they would be riders that cut the deficit or direct spending to paying off the debt, or maybe returning the taxes collected to those who paid them (in a 1:1 ratio, of course - just refund the damn money). What I do NOT do, is make a grab for the money anyway.

Your analogy breaks down because Ron Paul knowingly added spending riders to bills he knew were going to pass regardless of his voting against them. If he knows in advance they'll pass, then he's attaching the wrong kind of rider - and being a hypocrite in the process. He's only doing it so that he can take his fiscal freedom fighter stance while still doing what's necessary to stay in Congress - appease his lobbyists and wealthy constituents. He's a political expert, and to portray him as some kind of noble fighter for the cause is just absolutely ludicrous on its face.
 
2012-12-13 05:42:50 PM

YoungLochinvar: you have pee hands: The article is wrong. It says that the Republican position is unsatisfiable because there isn't much money to cut without kicking the poor really hard in the balls. The Republicans don't care; they want to kick the poor really hard in the balls. They think it's what the poor deserve, or even that it will help.

Of course, but they want to turn around and blame Obama when 2014 comes along. They're demanding cuts that they don't want to be held responsible for when the next election rolls along.


Yes. Your point being...?
That's exactly the problem; politicians shouldn't be afraid to take credit for having forced cuts. That sort of behavior should be rewarded, not punished. That's why we're ultimately at fault for this mess.
 
2012-12-13 05:47:54 PM

jst3p: namatad: AUSTERITY!!

Yeah, lets go with the method that has proven to make things worse.

Link


sorry, I thought I put a sarcastic mark after it ;-)

it is funny how hard it is for us to learn things.

no, pure communism/socialism does not work. we have two GREAT examples:
east vs west germany
north vs south korea

trickle down economics do not work
period
if they did, we would be living in paradise after 30+ years of it trickling down.

The list goes on and on and one
 
2012-12-13 05:48:32 PM

qqqq: Keizer_Ghidorah I call bullshiat.

Idiots, like you, who don't know that the freedom they have is NOT normal is the problem. Rule of law and property rights are why free people are free.


And that has anything to do with what I said... how?

qqqq: Bullshiat.

Greece is not at war yet is broken. If Eunuchstan reduced military spending to zero would they be solvent?

Morons given blank checks are the problem. As are bullshiat canons. (spelling intentional)


You mean like Bush's two wars on a credit card that we're having to pay off now?
 
2012-12-13 05:48:41 PM
Of course, but they want to turn around and blame Obama when 2014 comes along. They're demanding cuts that they don't want to be held responsible for when the next election rolls along.

Obama want's cuts? Bullshiat.
 
2012-12-13 05:50:29 PM

jst3p: Create new tax brackets at 1,000,0000 and 50,000,000


*critical hit*

Add in a mechanism to cap the amount of capital gains taxed as such (all cap gains over 1,000,000 is income or some such) and I think we're more aligned with the realities of today.
 
2012-12-13 05:50:53 PM

qqqq: Obama want's cuts? Bullshiat.


Weird of him to approve $1.5T in cuts last year then.
 
2012-12-13 05:51:06 PM

namatad: sorry, I thought I put a sarcastic mark after it ;-)


My meter must be on the fritz. Apologies.
 
2012-12-13 05:53:05 PM

GoSlash27: I have no idea why you'd think I'm against DoD cuts.


cuts are one thing, 90% of DOD spending is discretionary ....
they could fire all the soldiers and shut down the pentagon ...
it is a discretion ....

not an entitlement which is required spending .... LOLOLOLOL

NO ONE has been pushing for cuts that deep in DOD (other than the nuts)
but, 5% a year for 10 years would work too

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERIKA?!!
 
2012-12-13 05:58:31 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: You mean like Bush's two wars on a credit card that we're having to pay off now?


Remember when O'Neill and Greenspan were talking about what to do with the surplus once we have paid off the national debt?

THANKS GOP. THANKS BUSH.
What was WRONG with paying off our longer overdue bills???
farkERS
 
2012-12-13 06:00:49 PM

namatad: GoSlash27: I have no idea why you'd think I'm against DoD cuts.

cuts are one thing, 90% of DOD spending is discretionary ....
they could fire all the soldiers and shut down the pentagon ...
it is a discretion ....

not an entitlement which is required spending .... LOLOLOLOL

NO ONE has been pushing for cuts that deep in DOD (other than the nuts)
but, 5% a year for 10 years would work too

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERIKA?!!


Can anyone else make heads or tails of what this guy is saying? Or why he's directing it at me? I'm at a loss...
 
2012-12-13 06:17:08 PM

GoSlash27: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERIKA?!!

Can anyone else make heads or tails of what this guy is saying? Or why he's directing it at me? I'm at a loss...


dammit
yet another case of missing sarcasm mark
you were getting uppity that I was insinuating that you were or were not against cuts in defense.
when what I had written was not CUTS in defense but closing DOD down ....
but go on ....
 
2012-12-13 06:34:26 PM

MattStafford: One dude says that the meeting's dues should not be used to spend on food, and that everyone can use their money to eat prior, as they see fit. Since the food budget is included in the meeting's dues, and that dude can no longer afford to go out and eat on his own, he is forced to eat the Chinese.

There ya go.


• One dude says that the meeting's dues should not be used to spend on food
• Everyone uses their money to eat prior, as they see fit
• That dude can no longer afford to go out and eat on his own

So if they had listened to this guy and NOT used the dues for food, he is the crabby, hungry guy in the back of the room who biatches about everything that goes on during the meeting?
 
2012-12-13 06:36:12 PM

GoSlash27: Dusk-You-n-Me: GoSlash27: Neither party is serious about getting the budget in order because they know that the cuts that are required are political suicide.

Budget Control Act. Obama signed off on $1.5T in spending cuts in exchange for zero tax increases. So no, "neither side is serious" is not true.

That's 1.5T total over the course of 10 years for a budget projected to accumulate 11.2 T in the same time. No, that's not "serious".
[www.americanthinker.com image 626x575]



www.americanthinker.com

So you're saying a Republican will be elected in 2016?
 
2012-12-13 06:37:12 PM

Rich Cream: So you're saying a Republican will be elected in 2016?


Elected *president*.

/lol
 
2012-12-13 06:45:48 PM
Spending isn't "out of control". Every penny has been appropriate by Congress as required by the Constitution.

The federal budget deficit is different from the national debt so stop using the terms interchangably. It just makes you look stupid.

Your numbers comparing the federal budget deficit for all presidential administrations are crap because they aren't adjusted for inflation. Link

The federal budget deficit grew when Obama put Bush's off the books spending on the books. No new money was spent.

About a third of Obama's "stimulus" was tax cuts and tax cuts don't increase the deficit. Link.

The federal bailout of AIG actually made a $22.7B profit for the US taxpayer. Link

They're budget hawks when Democrats are in office but when GOPers are in office we get "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" by Dick Cheney.
 
2012-12-13 06:46:17 PM

Cletus C.: More that doubling didn't happen until 2012 when you've gone from 1.8 in 2000 to 3.8 for this year.


Except 3.8 is incorrect. It was 3.538.
 
2012-12-13 06:46:57 PM
oops.

About a third of Obama's "stimulus" was tax cuts and tax cuts don't increase the deficit. Link.
 
2012-12-13 06:51:05 PM

Rich Cream: Rich Cream: So you're saying a Republican will be elected in 2016?

Elected *president*.

/lol


No... what I'm *saying* is exactly what I said. Neither party is serious about balancing the budget. Period. Full stop.
/reading is FUNdamental
 
2012-12-13 06:51:13 PM

sweetmelissa31: pecosdave: The GOP is just as guilty as the Democrats for it too, which is why I refer to them as "Republicrats".

I prefer Doodiecrats and Republiqueefs.


This is why we all love you.
 
2012-12-13 07:04:52 PM
The only cuts Republicans really want is to cut Obamacare.

They really need to apply the ointment and move on...
 
2012-12-13 07:07:29 PM
My proposal: Give everyone a 20% tax break while increasing military spending.

When you sit back and think about that, it sounds laughable, not even remotely plausible for a second.

Two months ago: Half the country was spouting it like gospel. Simply deflected and avoided people challenging them on the logic of it. They nearly won the popular vote with a 'proposal' like that.

Our elections now have very little to do with policy and more to do with who's team your on. 
ryansingercomedy.com

PS - do any of these sheep look like wolves to anyone else?
 
2012-12-13 07:09:51 PM

whidbey: sprawl15: I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.

I've seen you post that before. That's just a bizarre thing to want.


Not so much. Sprawl and I agree on this.
 
2012-12-13 07:36:29 PM

Bontesla: whidbey: sprawl15: I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.

I've seen you post that before. That's just a bizarre thing to want.

Not so much. Sprawl and I agree on this.


Yeah but seriously. "Regulating" meth=prohibition

There is no "safe" use of meth for any purpose.
 
2012-12-13 07:38:59 PM

whidbey: Bontesla: whidbey: sprawl15: I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.

I've seen you post that before. That's just a bizarre thing to want.

Not so much. Sprawl and I agree on this.

Yeah but seriously. "Regulating" meth=prohibition

There is no "safe" use of meth for any purpose.


Weight loss?

/sorry
 
2012-12-13 07:48:53 PM

mgshamster: Weight loss?

/sorry


Hey you know, if a shrunken brain means a few less pounds, awesome.
 
2012-12-13 08:08:29 PM

jst3p: buck1138: What is gold used for industrially? For jewelry, yes, but industrially?

Monster Cables?



Link

Quite a few things actually.


Gold is why airbags are $5000.
 
2012-12-13 08:10:49 PM

whidbey: mgshamster: Weight loss?

/sorry

Hey you know, if a shrunken brain means a few less pounds, awesome.


Snerk. But really, meth is a schedule 2 drug, so that means there are some medical uses for it. I've seen it prescribed for weight loss before (you never see a fat meth addict, do you?). And according to wiki (which is never wrong and always right), ADHD.

I don't know if it still used in the US for any medical uses, but at the very least it used to be.
 
2012-12-13 08:13:45 PM

mgshamster: whidbey: mgshamster: Weight loss?

/sorry

Hey you know, if a shrunken brain means a few less pounds, awesome.

Snerk. But really, meth is a schedule 2 drug, so that means there are some medical uses for it. I've seen it prescribed for weight loss before (you never see a fat meth addict, do you?). And according to wiki (which is never wrong and always right), ADHD.

I don't know if it still used in the US for any medical uses, but at the very least it used to be.


I have lost 30 pounds, I have 20 to go and they are being stubborn. I am pretty sure that a 1 month supply of meth would do it. The genius part of the plan is that I am such a square there is no way I would be able to get more after the month was over, so no long term effects.

"Never meth, not even once!"

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!
 
2012-12-13 08:17:18 PM

jst3p: mgshamster: whidbey: mgshamster: Weight loss?

/sorry

Hey you know, if a shrunken brain means a few less pounds, awesome.

Snerk. But really, meth is a schedule 2 drug, so that means there are some medical uses for it. I've seen it prescribed for weight loss before (you never see a fat meth addict, do you?). And according to wiki (which is never wrong and always right), ADHD.

I don't know if it still used in the US for any medical uses, but at the very least it used to be.

I have lost 30 pounds, I have 20 to go and they are being stubborn. I am pretty sure that a 1 month supply of meth would do it. The genius part of the plan is that I am such a square there is no way I would be able to get more after the month was over, so no long term effects.

"Never meth, not even once!"

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!


Makes me wonder what the difference is between therapeutic and abuse doses. Don't feel like looking it up on the ipad. Discovering information on this device is just not as quick as a desktop (for me, anyways).
 
2012-12-13 08:19:22 PM

mgshamster: I don't know if it still used in the US for any medical uses, but at the very least it used to be.


I'm sure at one time it was.
 
2012-12-13 08:20:01 PM

Nadie_AZ: Out here in the deserts, there aren't many free running rivers and streams anymore. Take away Government protection and it'd ... let's just say the original pioneers and homesteaders asked the Government for help in sharing that precious resource we have.


I know a little something about dried rivers. I'm from Pecos. The once mighty Pecos river is little more than a trickle now because New Mexico decided to keep it for mostly recreational purposes. Texas sued them over it in the late 70's/early 80's. Texas won - New Mexico was ordered to let water through. They didn't.

Nothing.

The Pecos river is still little more than a mud bed with a trickle flowing down the middle while people in New Mexico are skiing and fishing it up. Ignore the order, all is fine.
 
2012-12-13 08:22:50 PM

whidbey: mgshamster: I don't know if it still used in the US for any medical uses, but at the very least it used to be.

I'm sure at one time it was.


From wiki:

Medical use

Desoxyn (methamphetamine) 5 mg tablets
Methamphetamine has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in treating ADHD and exogenous obesity (obesity originating from factors outside of the patient's control) in both adults and children.[10]
Methamphetamine is a Schedule II drug in the United States and is sold under the trademark name Desoxyn.[10]
Desoxyn may be prescribed off-label for the treatment of narcolepsy and treatment-resistant depression.[11]
 
2012-12-13 08:24:39 PM

magusdevil: I just really didn't want this to get too buried. Would you like to explain, or should we just assume that you're a deadbeat dad?


There's nothing deadbeat about me. 1/3 of my income gone. My daughter? When I pick her up filthy with ill fitting dirty clothes. This man with a security clearance and no record fought a convicted felon in court for seven year, wound up on the news over it. Use all the reason, logic, and proof you want, when a woman turns on the water works child abuse becomes legal.
 
2012-12-13 08:28:45 PM

pecosdave: magusdevil: I just really didn't want this to get too buried. Would you like to explain, or should we just assume that you're a deadbeat dad?

There's nothing deadbeat about me. 1/3 of my income gone. My daughter? When I pick her up filthy with ill fitting dirty clothes. This man with a security clearance and no record fought a convicted felon in court for seven year, wound up on the news over it. Use all the reason, logic, and proof you want, when a woman turns on the water works child abuse becomes legal.


Found your probelm. Dirty ill fitting clothes do not constitute child abuse.
 
2012-12-13 08:31:49 PM

magusdevil: just assume that you're a deadbeat dad?


Call me deadbeat one more time.

I'm supporting my daughter at least three times over. I'm shelling out more money than it costs to raise any healthy kid in child support. I'm maintaining a place to live big enough for her to live here full time along with clothing etc. Despite having an income above the national average - not huge but above average - I'm living paycheck to paycheck providing for her just to watch her be mentally abused and uncared for. I work extra jobs just to make ends meet and catch up. My vehicle doesn't have a whole lot of miles left in it, part of the reason I bike to work as much as possible but without a doubt I'm going to have to keep something to drive with absolutely no way to afford my next one. 1/3 of your income is a lot for child support. Stack on the bigger than I need just for me apartment and everything else I'm up over 1/2 my income spent caring for my daughter.

One more time asshole, call me a deadbeat.
 
2012-12-13 08:37:42 PM

pecosdave: 1/3 of your income is a lot for child support.


I will agree with you there, I pay ~10% for 2 kids.Although I do have 50% physical custody I have noticed that child support seems to be pretty regressive. I have a bit over twice the national median income and I pay a much lower percentage than most people I hear about. And it isn't like I had a better lawyer, I pay what the chart says for my income and parenting time.
 
2012-12-13 08:42:30 PM

jst3p: Found your probelm. Dirty ill fitting clothes do not constitute child abuse.


She's married to a millionaire now, that's how she was able to keep a court case going for seven years and win. She wants power over me, doesn't need my money but takes it for the power purpose. Doesn't actually care about our kid, just wants to make sure I don't have her.

What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire and not putting clothes on her we send with her to make sure she has fitting clothes doesn't constitute child abuse?
 
2012-12-13 08:51:36 PM

pecosdave: What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire and not putting clothes on her we send with her to make sure she has fitting clothes doesn't constitute child abuse?


Because child abuse has a definition and that doesn't fit it:

I will break it down for you:

"What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire"
This has no direct effect on the kid. Sucks for you, but you being broke isn't child abuse.

not putting clothes on her we send with her


She has no obligation to put her in the clothes you send her.

to make sure she has fitting clothes


I'll fitting clothes do not constitute child abuse.

If what you say is true (and I don't know if it is or isn't but my experience tells me that most people who aren't happy with the results of a custody case embellish at the very least, many outright lie) she is a biatch, but nothing you have described is child abuse.

"I find the fact that you dressed your daughter in a shirt that was ill fitting to be despicable. I have no idea how someone could be so callus to one's own flesh and blood. You make me sick! I find you guilty of child abuse! Take her away!"

Said no judge, ever.
 
2012-12-13 08:58:41 PM

Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Vodka Zombie: pecosdave: Spending is out of control.

Apparently, what "out of control" looks like:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 657x464]

Strange how it trends down when a Democrat is in office, huh?

Anyway, I think you need to be more honest and say that spending WAS out of control, but with the winding down of two unfunded wars, things are steadily improving.

May not be at its peak, but it's still looks a little out of control to me.

You want instant results?

The economy doesn't work like your broadband internet connection. These things take TIME. You maybe need to revisit your expectations and consider taking a more reasonable approach here. Maybe buy a better watch?


Yes, the national (and international) economy does take time before actions cause results. However, government spending is pretty much dictated by the previous year's budget, so that is fairly immediate. So those results are precisely the one-year after a budget enactment.
 
2012-12-13 09:01:28 PM

jst3p: pecosdave: What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire and not putting clothes on her we send with her to make sure she has fitting clothes doesn't constitute child abuse?

Because child abuse has a definition and that doesn't fit it:

I will break it down for you:

"What about getting 1/3 of my income while married to a millionaire"
This has no direct effect on the kid. Sucks for you, but you being broke isn't child abuse.

not putting clothes on her we send with her


She has no obligation to put her in the clothes you send her.

to make sure she has fitting clothes


I'll fitting clothes do not constitute child abuse.

If what you say is true (and I don't know if it is or isn't but my experience tells me that most people who aren't happy with the results of a custody case embellish at the very least, many outright lie) she is a biatch, but nothing you have described is child abuse.

"I find the fact that you dressed your daughter in a shirt that was ill fitting to be despicable. I have no idea how someone could be so callus to one's own flesh and blood. You make me sick! I find you guilty of child abuse! Take her away!"

Said no judge, ever.


Your technicalities may be accurate but the mental abuse is still abuse. She continues to do to the children, ours and hers, what she used to do to me and her older child when we were married. Our child was too young at the time but she gets the abuse now as well. It's amazing what water works can do to counter reason. Is bullshiat like this part of the reason I have doubts in government? You bet.

She actually had my daughter convinced she had a magic crystal ball she could watch and listen to her with when she wasn't with her to keep her from saying anything negative about her the court appointed shrink or to us. My daughter told me so - after the case.

Is it child abuse not to do her laundry, feed her nothing but pizza, hot-dogs, and burger, not to make her brush her teeth, wash her hair, wipe her ass? According to you probably not. If not I've lost even more faith in our government overlords. The girl used to love veggies and good food when she was little, before she was wrestled away, now she refuses to eat anything not from a can or the fast food looking menu. All hail our government overlords who know what's best for us!
 
2012-12-13 09:02:37 PM

dericwater: Yes, the national (and international) economy does take time before actions cause results. However, government spending is pretty much dictated by the previous year's budget, so that is fairly immediate. So those results are precisely the one-year after a budget enactment.



National economics isn't like your household budget. Cutting spending results in a loss of GDP and increases unemployment. If it is done too quickly we go into recession or worse.

I agree it needs to be done but it needs to be done carefully.
 
2012-12-13 09:04:02 PM
Anything over about 18% of GDP is "out of control". We have not been "in control" for a long time.
 
2012-12-13 09:06:01 PM

pecosdave: Is it child abuse not to do her laundry, feed her nothing but pizza, hot-dogs, and burger, not to make her brush her teeth, wash her hair, wipe her ass? According to you probably not.


Unless you can prove demonstrable physical or emotional harm, no it isn't. You walking around claiming that your ex abuses your daughter probably just makes the people around you dismissive.

Bad parenting is not necessarily abuse. The fact that you claim her taking 1/3 of your income is child abuse makes me laugh, but not with you.

It isn't a wonder that the judge didn't take you seriously.
 
2012-12-13 09:07:18 PM

whidbey: Bontesla: whidbey: sprawl15: I want meth sold at Walgreens, but I also want it regulated and taxed.

I've seen you post that before. That's just a bizarre thing to want.

Not so much. Sprawl and I agree on this.

Yeah but seriously. "Regulating" meth=prohibition

There is no "safe" use of meth for any purpose.


I'm not interested in a safe USE for meth. I'm interested in solving the meth problem and the first step is acknowledging that criminalizing a health problem is only making a bad situation worse.
 
2012-12-13 09:52:19 PM

jst3p: pecosdave: Is it child abuse not to do her laundry, feed her nothing but pizza, hot-dogs, and burger, not to make her brush her teeth, wash her hair, wipe her ass? According to you probably not.

Unless you can prove demonstrable physical or emotional harm, no it isn't. You walking around claiming that your ex abuses your daughter probably just makes the people around you dismissive.

Bad parenting is not necessarily abuse. The fact that you claim her taking 1/3 of your income is child abuse makes me laugh, but not with you.

It isn't a wonder that the judge didn't take you seriously.


Please point to where I said her taking 1/3 of my income is child abuse. It's abuse to take it for her and not use it on her. I'm paying for international trips and vacations, not child care. At least I honestly think she kicked the method habit.
 
2012-12-13 09:58:19 PM

pecosdave: At least I honestly think she kicked the method habit.


Stupid auto-correct. Meth habit.

BTW - I'm clean and she said so in the court room. She took it back later to get me tested on a long shot after she got busted again, but no, I was still clean.
 
2012-12-13 10:10:23 PM

pecosdave: Your technicalities may be accurate but the mental abuse is still abuse. She continues to do to the children, ours and hers, what she used to do to me and her older child when we were married. Our child was too young at the time but she gets the abuse now as well. It's amazing what water works can do to counter reason. Is bullshiat like this part of the reason I have doubts in government? You bet.

She actually had my daughter convinced she had a magic crystal ball she could watch and listen to her with when she wasn't with her to keep her from saying anything negative about her the court appointed shrink or to us. My daughter told me so - after the case.

Is it child abuse not to do her laundry, feed her nothing but pizza, hot-dogs, and burger, not to make her brush her teeth, wash her ass? According to you probably not. If not I've lost even more faith in our government overlords. The girl used to love veggies and good food when she was little, before she was wrestled away, now she refuses to eat anything not from a can or the fast food looking menu. All hail our government overlords who know what's best for us!


As a divorced father who paid more of his income to his ex in child support, alimony, lawyers' fees, and military pension than you have (try 50% plus), I sense some bitterness in your comments and overall demeanor in this thread. I understand and have experienced that bitterness. I also strongly suspect you are not being objective in your views being expressed here concerning a great many things.

Seriously, I recommend professional counseling. Not being snarky about this at all. I'm quite serious.

You may not convince us and/or any judge your ex is abusing your child. But, you can learn the differences between poor parenting skills, assumed & real child abuse, and manage the heavy emotions you may be experiencing. By controlling yourself and working out the difficulties of being a parent not fully in control of your child's upbringing, you can present a better example for your kid of a parent.

She may stay with her mom. She may decide later to live with you. My son did when he was 15. Under our state's laws, a child can decide to live with which ever parent they want at 12.

But, I will warn you not to force the issue or throw your emotions upon your child, even if you think it's in their best interest. Such behavior is not good.

Likewise, there is never any guarantee that there will be a happy ending in the future. My son moved in with me, but, five years later, he died in an accident here. Your kid may have a great life, or turn into a neerdowell or worse. All you can do is to do your best and hope.
 
Displayed 50 of 472 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report