Well I can't speak to Switzerland, but I can tell you what happens over here if you're a man and go talk to a divorce lawyer and tell him or her you want to be involved with your kids on a 50/50 or greater basis.

You wll be asked point-blank if your soon-to-be-ex is a drunk or druggie, and if not, you will be asked if you have $50,000 or more to spend on the fight, with a 10% probability of winning.

I am not ****ting you.

So before aspersions are cast, pay attention to what is called "bargaining in the shadow of the law." When that is the reality (and it is here in the US) you cannot claim that men "don't want their kids".

Most men don't have the money and if they do they won't spend it with a 10% chance of success.

By the way, I spent six figures and the first number wasn't a "1", so I can personally tell you tha what people SAY is reality is not bull****.

Backing up to what Capeman said regarding Diabetes, just a quick interjection:

Capeman wrote..

You could lower type II occurance by way more than 60% by changing your eating habits and getting more exercise but drugs are easier for the end user.

I wonder if that's really true. "Drugs are easier" is usually only true in the short term, not the long term. Hell, most drugs haven't even been around for the long term...

Worse: in our corporate-fascist society where GDP growth is the be-all and end-all, and where most of us are brainwashed by the nonstop marketing spin, it's clear that all the incentives are on the side of (a) selling food and (b) selling drugs. Success by the marketers on those two fronts increases corporate profits at the expense of individual health. By contrast, if people shut out the marketers and ate better, exercised more and avoided the drugs -- we'd be happier but it would be a negative for GDP!!! Sigh...

We need better metrics for national success and standards of living than GDP, the stock market, and "low unemployment". Capitalism is great at getting results, but when we set up an unbalanced playing field and then aim for the wrong goalposts, we get what we deserve...

So Karl, it seems to me that you have SOLE custody of your child. How did you manage that? Hope this is not too personal of a question.

OOOK, should we start a fund "No Gender Left Behind" to conduct scientific research to get men pregnant? Equal tummies'n'boobs for all, here you go! Well, I'd personally ask for more balls rather than too much boobs - but that's just me! LOL!

you can use mine heidi.

I'd trade in some of my boobs Storm (don't have much to start with, but with a Wonderbra your cleavage would look OK)!!!

Alas, it's only a matter of a few more years before men are made redundant by genetic technology. Mix the DNA and contents of two eggs together the right way and you'll probably get a baby. No sperm necessary, no more Y chromosomes... lots more catfights and women in the army...

Guys, don't leave us! Pleez! Sorry Karl for flooding your thread - that'll be my last one, promise...

Karl, forgot to mention this morning, GREAT ticker.

Guy, I disagree. It's every pussy that should have a warning seal.... "All rights revoked upon penetrating this seal".

I guess that puts me in the drunk or druggie category? Not so, I rarely drink and I can't remember the last time I had more than 2 drinks at a sitting. And, no one has ever accused me of being anything but a great mother.

Yet, my 14 year old daughter lives 70% of the time with her father (my x-husband) and I pay 70% of her expenses even though he makes at least twice as much as I do - with the phd that he earned while we were still married and living off my salary entirely. We got divorced shortly after he got his degree when he had his first job. He got 1/2 my six digit 401k (of course I got half his too but it was squat), I had to pay him a lump sum payment for 1/2 the value of our home and 1/2 our bank accounts - 90% of which came from money that I earned during our marriage since he didn't earn anything until the final year of our marriage.

Because my lawyer SUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKED.

In my opinion, it's all about who can aford/or has the foresight to hire the better lawyer. I think men go into it expecting to need to spend the big bucks to get a fair hearing and women naively think that they will get a fair hearing as the mother without hiring a top $$$ attorney.

As a woman working in the civil litigation arena, I can say without hesitation that Karl is exactly right about the legal system's shameful bias toward women in divorce proceedings. For reasons that elude me, both judges and attorneys continue to view women as helpless victims of male domination and unequal opportunity and continue to reward them for life of passivity (read: laziness) by giving them the equivalent of a free ride for life.

It never ceases to amaze me how, 40 years into the so-called women's movement, the majority of women still do not regard it as their responsibility to provide for themselves and their children financially. Girls coming out of high school and college these days still continue, by and large, to see their primary mission in life as being the snagging of the best looking and most well-to-do husband that their physical assets can buy them. The expected return on that achievement, to put it bluntly, is that they'll be financially set for life without having to do very much.

Ironically, when the relationship goes sour, more often than not the divorce court orders that the gravy train continue based upon the fact that the woman has done comparatively little over the years to support herself--or to even make herself capable of self-support. Back in my days in the firm, I used to call it the "free ride for life."

I know I'm going to catch **** for saying so, but ten years of picking up fruit loops and wiping runny noses does not even come close, in my mind, to spending 40+ years, day in and day out, slogging it out for 10-14 hours a day in the competitive work force. So give me a break with the "sacrificed valuable earning years raising his children" routine.

In a culture where the statistics say you have a 50% or better chance of ending up in divorce, I have little patience or understanding of anyone who enters into a marriage having no idea what she would do in the event it doesn't work out. When it comes to the matter of having children, if a woman is not financially capable of providing for those children--with or without a husband--I say, "Keep your damned legs shut."

**** you tickerfan. The gravy train during my marriage was in his direction not mine.

Let's see, he gets married and mutually decides to have kids and then when we get divorced you believe it should be 100% the woman's responsibility to financially support the kids going forward. The guy should have no financial responsibility? WTF planet are you on? Did I tie him down and force him to have sex with me to have children against his will...no we mutually agreed to have children. So why should the financial responsibility completely rest on the women if the marriage fails? You haven't given any rationale yet for why that should be.

These women who are living this "life of passivity and laziness"...are you talking about friends of yours? Because I know a lot of women and they all work hard as software enginers and as mothers...harder than their husbands do, I can say that. I don't personally know any women living a life of passivity and laziness. These girls graduating from high school who are looking for boys to "snag"...are these your daughter's friends you're talking about...because I've got two teenage girls and they both have careers planned and so do their friends. I've never even heard them talk about getting married some day. So, exactly who are you talking about or is this all just theoretical women from stereotyped stories that you've heard of?

Yes, I agree that I should have to pay financially to support my daughter but I believe her father, who mutually agreed to have her, has an equal responisbility!

My comments were not directed at you, Francynemarie. Your post was not up at the time I began writing (I was interrupted midstream), so I apologize if it appeared to be in response to you. I was speaking in generalities, and would not presume to know whether you're one of the women I'm talking about.

My views on this topic come from having observed a whole lot of men and women in dissolution proceedings, where you get a pretty good inside view of what people are all about. As a result of that inside view, I do not have a very high opinion of my own gender. I'm sorry, but I call 'em like I see 'em.

Fran, that you're an exception does not mean the statistics are different than they are.

I not only watched hundreds of dissolutions while waiting my turn and did thousands of hours of my own legal research (I've been VERY active in kid's rights and family law reform for years) but in addition I have spent plenty of time both professionally and personally, on a friendship level, with some of the best litigators in Illinois in this area.

Quote:

These women who are living this "life of passivity and laziness"...are you talking about friends of yours? Because I know a lot of women and they all work hard as software enginers and as mothers...harder than their husbands do, I can say that. I don't personally know any women living a life of passivity and laziness. These girls graduating from high school who are looking for boys to "snag"...are these your daughter's friends you're talking about...because I've got two teenage girls and they both have careers planned and so do their friends. I've never even heard them talk about getting married some day. So, exactly who are you talking about or is this all just theoretical women from stereotyped stories that you've heard of?

Call my ex and tell her that bull****, Fran. That woman is hellbent on executing vengeance, regardless of concessions.

I think it depends on the state.

I have a female relative who has never received a dime of voluntary child support from her ex - for going on 9 years now. Child support enforcement here in Florida told her to forget it, as she'd never get any money from him.

He made the mistake of moving to Georgia, where they track him down every year or so and garnish his wages. This lasts for exactly one paycheck, at which point he quits his job and gets another one. He's never had his drivers license revoked and never been arrested for failure to pay support.

He still demands 'his rights' to see his son, and recently told him (the boy) he was going on disability. He's 35 or so. Now WE will be paying for him to sit home and watch TV.

Mo -

Georgia is very lax when it comes to Child Support so I'm not surprised. She would've been well off if he decided to come up here to NC..I swear these people up here are like bloodhounds.

Yahuw, Georgia at least tracks him down periodically.

Florida basically gave him a free pass.

I think the solution to this is simple:

1. You split up, neither of you leaves the county and you both care for the kid 50% of the time. You split the cost of the transfers equally. IF one of you leaves the school district (assuming the kid(s) are enrolled at the time) you eat ALL costs of transport to/from school. NO financial transfers of any kind - period.

2. If either of you depart the county or refuses 50% care you lose custody. You may spend all the time you want with your kid(s), at your sole expense, without exception up to 50%, even if you move. The other parent, should you leave, is free to move no furhter away from you than you move away from the kids, without penalty. The person who moves pays child support, statutorily, at one half of the FDA-published amount necessary to raise <X> children, irrespective of income. You don't pay you go to jail for child abuse or your parental rights are terminated, at the option of the other parent.

3. If you move for some reason you may, at any time, move BACK within the county where the kid(s) are residing and if you do, you regain custodial rights assuming you have not have them terminated for nonpayment of support previously. The same rules in (1) and (2) apply.

That's it. You may negotiate something different but if you don't or can't then this is what the law requires be imposed.

When women go on about what a low-life scum their ex is, and how they can't get a dime of support for the kids, I am apt to quote from Judge Judy: "You picked him."

Bull**** Heidi, there are a lot of men that have custody of their children, and tons don't get to take custody because the system unfairly gives the mother custody. Your post is so wrong in so many ways. I hate when I hear or read **** like that. Shame on you.

Wisdom- All you have to do is go tell your Dr. you have a problem sleeping/restless legs/your cholesterol is high/you eat too much/you have headaches every once in a while.

What you're going to get in return is at least one prescription for each one of those issues rather than a sit down chat about how can change your lifestyle/diet/exercise habits and stress load to help fix most if not all of those. Type II diabetes and its symptoms are the worst example of that. What the majority of the time leads someone to acquired Type II symptoms and high cholesterol is lifestyle and eating habits. With the way people are in this society the last thing they want to hear is how they are fatasses and need to be more responsible for their wellbeing. It's much easier for a Dr. to write up some prescriptions, collect the free lunches for the reps and feel like he's going a good job by following that standard of care. Although Drs have no choice when it comes to fatal disease standard of care (cancer and it's treatments), for diabetes and obesity they always have the option for prescribing instead of talking and that way they keep their patients from shopping around until they find a Dr. who won't make them feel bad about themselves.

I personally went in to see my Doc a couple of years ago and was well overweight and a total cholesterol level of 220. He told me my options and I went for the diet. I knocked 65 off of that score in a month dropped 30 lbs in two weeks and got my ass running half marathons to make up for my lazy ass. Truth be told I believe the guy was getting commissions from the diet company but at least he was doing the right thing. That is not common.

You know, I've read this thread and the Wednesday ticker thread, and I have to say that I'm disappointed.
Karl, you need to actually read Ron Paul's positions in some of his literature. He has specifically said that he will phase out Medicare and Social Security over time and he will pay for those remaining on it today by means of cutting the one trillion + we spend every year on foreign interventionism. Even if you disagree on cutting out lots of our foreign interventionism spending, there are still hundreds of billions that we can all agree on that go to waste. That's just one little part of his solution to deal with Medicare and Social Security.
But you should know that, since you claim to know all of his positions.
As for him wanting to bring back gold as a currency, that is completely false. He wants to create an alternative currency to the Federal Reserve Note dollar that is based on the value of gold. Therefore, the value of this alternative currency would fluctuate based on the fluctuating value of gold.

By the way, since you rant and rave all day about our pathetic Congress, why don't you actually run for Congress? I'm being serious here. Then you wouldn't have to complain about Congress; you could attempt to change things there yourself. I mean isn't it just a little hypocritical to complain all the time about our members of Congress when you are not actively engaged in trying to become a member of Congress yourself? Better to take direct action than to complain about it.

Finally, I don't think the ticker really is making as much of an impact as you believe. Sure, people like me have found the information contained within quite valuable. But I do not believe that the message is coming across to Congress, the Fed, and the like. I think that you and the forum should think about new ways to get the message out. Sure, the Fed members, members of Congress, and the like should already know about the things that you express in the ticker, but I'm afraid you overestimate their intelligence and knowledge. So I say you and the forum should take further direct action and really try to spread the message and educate the public. They really are ignorant. For that reason, it is useless to complain about their inaction on a daily basis. They just don't know. I think the protest at Wall Street was a good start. I think more events like that will go much further than calling out people in the ticker.

Quote:

You don't pay you go to jail for child abuse or your parental rights are terminated, at the option of the other parent.

so I lose my job, can't pay or miss a few while I look for a job so I should lose my parental rights or go to jail (based on the opinion of a potential jilted spouse)? In a right to work state I can be fired at any time at the whim of my employer so your top solution when I'm out of work is to potentially go to jail or never see my kids (through potentially no fault of my own)?

sorry, but that's just nuts.

Tickerfan, you're absolutely right - everyone bears the responsibility for anything that happens to them.

Marrying the wrong spouse is one of the worst decisions a person could make.

But your 'expertise' is clearly off, as I know many people - mostly females, though I work with a guy with the same problem - who get NO child support in this state, including one in my extended family.