• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democratic Platform STRONG, HEALTHY FAMILIES

DivineComedy

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
“2004 Democratic National Platform – 29
STRONG, HEALTHY FAMILIES
Family is the center of everyday American life. Our parents are our first protectors, first teachers, first role models, and first friends. Parents know that America's great reward is the quiet but incomparable satisfaction that comes from building their families a better life. Strong families, blessed with opportunity, guided by faith, and filled with dreams are the heart of a strong America.” http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

The Democrats say “strong families…are the heart of a strong America,” but what do they offer to keep families together?

“International development. We understand that promoting international economic development is a strategic imperative of the United States. We will use American economic power to extend security and prosperity – which leads to peace – around the world. And we will work with poor countries to help stabilize and diversify their economies, including through the consideration of sensible debt relief measures where appropriate.”

The Democrats say they are for “sensible debt relief measures where appropriate,“ for foreigners, but what about Americans? Do they care, or do that just serve the interests of those nations on a broad range of issues?

“Today, the average American family is earning $1,500 less than in 2000. At the same time, health care costs are up by nearly one-half, college tuition has increased by more than one-third, gas and oil prices have gone through the roof, and housing costs have soared. Life literally costs more than ever before – and our families have less money to pay for it. Three million more Americans have fallen into poverty since 2000. Average family debt is higher than ever. And as they lose the struggle to make ends meet, one out of every seven middle class families may be bankrupt by the end of the decade.”

The Democrats say that “Average family debt is higher than ever,“ but what are they going to do about it?

“Fiscal discipline. We must restore responsibility to our budget, or we will strangle opportunity for the next generation of middle class Americans. Over the last three years, record surpluses have turned into record deficits. Not once has this Administration tried to balance new spending with new savings or pay for new initiatives – including its enormous tax breaks for the wealthy. Today, we face unsustainable foreign borrowing and rising interest rates. Fiscal discipline helped create 23 million new jobs in the 1990s. Fiscal discipline frees up money for productive investment. And over time, fiscal discipline saves families thousands of dollars on their mortgages and credit cards.”

The Democrats say that “fiscal discipline saves families thousands of dollars on their mortgages and credit cards,” but if a spouse can hide five credit cards behind the back of the other spouse how can the family have fiscal discipline or responsibility in their budget?

The Democratic platform would give “debt relief” to “poor countries,” but has nothing for American home owners that have a choice of divorce, and breaking up the family, or the constant threat of fiscal irresponsibility promoted by usurers (VISA) as being funny:

“You have probably caught that Visa credit card commercial in which a wily wife hides her many shopping sprees under the bed and up in the attic, all out of sight from her clueless husband.
The punch line is that she could have won all that stuff she rung up on the plastic. But the reality behind such behavior is hardly a laughing matter.”
http://www.freep.com/features/living/binge16w_20050116.htm

The usurers have the law on their side, and those in bankruptcy can only go buy a lawyer a set of golf clubs, and a judge a lap dance, while the whores laugh all the way to the bank! File for bankruptcy (and ruin your credit when you may be trying to repair damage from a natural disaster so you can get a loan to consolidate the debt), or think about destroying the family for fiscal responsibility, those are the choices, in that the Democratic Party Platform will do nothing to support slapping the smile off the usurer's faces.

The usurers can use the law to attack family accounts when they think it is funny to hide purchases from a spouse, and all judges are not required to DIRECTLY serve notice to both spouses before garnishment of joint accounts. And where are the reasonable laws, or platform for laws, to prevent usurers from successfully seducing, cohabiting, and ****ing our spouses behind our backs? Where are the laws, or platform for laws, to make the risk to the usurers as equal as it is for a family?

Make the risk of the usurer equal to that of the family. Require a system where both spouses must acknowledge the existence of debt and all credit cards, with no possibility for a hidden credit card. And have no hidden debt on cards that are known about, where the spouse that is responsible for the credit card must sign the receipt each month that they send back to the usurer, or stop the credit card from being used; require the credit card company to keep records showing acknowledgement of debt in case of forgery. Or, deny the usurer the ability to recoup from joint accounts and assets of married couples, should the ONE they have seduced fail to pay. If we can not trust the law to protect us from usurers like VISA (that think hiding debt from a spouse is funny), and the platform is just lip service for an ignorant mob, it is a damn lie for a Party to claim it is for “STRONG, HEALTHY FAMILIES!”

As to the Democratic Party Platform on this forum:

"I know nothing! Nothing!" "I see nothing! Nothing!"
 
Last edited:

DivineComedy

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is it any surprise that I am talking to myself?

From William Shakespeare’s Henry VI:

“DICK. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

CADE. Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? That parchment, being scribbl'd o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings; but I say 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since. How now! Who's there?”

Me, I am here, and mad as hell to the point of spitting obscenities at the scum that attacked mercilessly, even when I told them right off that I would rebuild and pay them their damn money, as refinancing was already the plan before the storm, still there was no mercy when the holes in blue tarps were allowing rain to drip into what was left of my battered home. Surely, I will pay for even the smallest unthinking blurt of hatred, as the demons want to drain every drop out of my soul; I just hope they can leave my family’s property and flesh alone in the future. After all I have such lovely memories of seeing stars through the holes in my roof; and the constant harassment and threats of creditors and their lawyers who called at work for the embarrassment and tears, even when the so-called law served their interests at every turn. Moreover, you can bet that after all the repairs of tragedy, there would be no time for joy, for the spouse considered suicide in racking sobs before joy could find its root. And that was because the bank put a garnishment on our money above what was ordered to be garnished, and they would not remove it. Still with tears on what was left of the rain warped floor the usurers and lawyers salivated over the money, literally tracking its every movement like some mentally sick creature, even after their cold hearts reveled in the boiled blood of the helpless there was no mercy. Ruined for life in body and soul, as I am full of disgust, I saw no mercy and expect none will be forthcoming in the future. The law does not serve us. My future reality at the next loss looks better as a nomadic gypsy, to sing sad songs, if I could be so lucky to be that free, with only a pot to pee in. There was no charity, and due to what I have seen I will never count on any. What really burns me up is that it wasn’t even my bee’s wax that undid me; in the end the powerful always get their money with exorbitant interest. The merciless can be damned to hell, if only in a dream, but here on earth they make hell a reality until we find out for true.

“[2.280] And if (the debtor) is in straitness, then let there be postponement until (he is in) ease; and that you remit (it) as alms is better for you, if you knew.”

I knew there was one verse that I liked, I just forgot where it was, and if it finds its way into their law, they will be better off than our newly bankrupt that saw everything swept away with tears.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1647:

http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr3697.html

Is that it?

Can’t think of anything else to do?

Hello, any politicians really care?

Your rich friends can’t stomach a postponement until the debtor is at ease, but one of them gave a million dollars to hurricane relief, like what a joke, it should be spat upon, and they don’t like a “deadbeat” that pays off the credit card each month.

Think your rich friends could stand any spouse that could rule the roost and prevent a debt?

I do not think they can stand such a law, as they thought the Visa credit card commercial was funny, “in which a wily wife hides her many shopping sprees under the bed and up in the attic, all out of sight from her clueless husband!“

Politicians, who do you serve?

{All of the politician’s and their servants responded in the above postings}

That is what I thought.

The horror! The horror!
 

purplezen

New member
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree with you. Your suggestions make perfect sense.
 

DivineComedy

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
purplezen said:
I agree with you. Your suggestions make perfect sense.
It is nice to see that at least one person agrees.

http://forums.prospero.com/ti-os/messages?msg=14714.1

I personally would like to see wholesome and good laws before things with the new “Republican” bankruptcy laws go bad:

“I also think the law will backfire in another way. Anyone going through this process will think twice about unnecessary expenses and credit card purchases for a long, long time. That is a good thing, except of course for the greedy credit card companies thriving on usury and absurdly high fees.
Bottom line: I think the credit industry slit its own throat with this bill, in more ways than one.”
http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/Archives/20051012.html

Just waiting for people to find out the hard way is not what law should be for.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
DivineComedy said:
It is nice to see that at least one person agrees.

http://forums.prospero.com/ti-os/messages?msg=14714.1

I personally would like to see wholesome and good laws before things with the new “Republican” bankruptcy laws go bad:

“I also think the law will backfire in another way. Anyone going through this process will think twice about unnecessary expenses and credit card purchases for a long, long time. That is a good thing, except of course for the greedy credit card companies thriving on usury and absurdly high fees.
Bottom line: I think the credit industry slit its own throat with this bill, in more ways than one.”
http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/Archives/20051012.html

Just waiting for people to find out the hard way is not what law should be for.
Most of your premise doesn't make sense to me. I don't want to control commerce, as a rule, in this country. You talk a lot about usury, but current interest rates, including credit card rates, are historically low. Some of the penalties can be prohibitive if one pays bills late, but that's a question of personal responsibility.

I have credit cards, none of them have a rate over 8% annum, with no yearly fees. My credit record is very good, someone with a glitch or two would have higher rates, again, a personal issue. I'm not bragging, I just don't buy a lot of stuff and not pay for it.

I don't want the Democrats to start promoting faith and family in the same phrase either, like the Republicans do. Buzz words like pro-family shouldn't be used in politics. The government needs to repair the streets, make sure the trash is picked up, provide a police force and military, and, yes, enforce usury laws. But keep out of my family and keep your church to yourself. I am a former Democrat, and now belong to neither major party.

If a woman (this is sexist) hides a credit card and shops behind her husband's back, it is in no way the lender's responsibility. She has made a legal and normal contract with a credit card company. The fact that she deceives her husband regarding her spending is her personal problem, and at some point, her husbands. How can you hold responsible a third party which has done nothing wrong?

Americans on average carry too much debt, save too little, and many file for bankruptcy protection simply because they have been excessive and irresponsible. So the filing laws were changed. I don't know the details of the new law yet, but I think one of the changes involves a filer paying something back, based on what he can pay. This is good. Filing shouldn't be an easy choice. An exception should be given for those who file after a major medical problem hospitalizes them, so they have high expenses, even if health insured, and they miss work.
 

DivineComedy

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tryreading said:
The fact that she deceives her husband regarding her spending is her personal problem, and at some point, her husbands.
If it is the other spouse’s problem at some point then a responsible spouse should have the tools to prevent the problem in the first place.

Why prevent us from having the tools to be responsible? I do not want to hold the third party responsible, I want to be responsible.

The only way to prevent the problem, when deprived of consent and responsibility, is never to get married in the first place.

If someone wants the right to hide an irresponsible and crushing debt from a so-called spouse, and keep finances separate, there is such a thing as a prenuptial agreement, let those so-called “married” singles get one of those.

Surely a political platform that is against informed consent of truly married people, before an irresponsible debt is given, is for the tearing asunder of the one flesh.

I really need to hear from responsible Democrats!
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
DivineComedy said:
If it is the other spouse’s problem at some point then a responsible spouse should have the tools to prevent the problem in the first place.

Why prevent us from having the tools to be responsible? I do not want to hold the third party responsible, I want to be responsible.

The only way to prevent the problem, when deprived of consent and responsibility, is never to get married in the first place.

If someone wants the right to hide an irresponsible and crushing debt from a so-called spouse, and keep finances separate, there is such a thing as a prenuptial agreement, let those so-called “married” singles get one of those.

Surely a political platform that is against informed consent of truly married people, before an irresponsible debt is given, is for the tearing asunder of the one flesh.

I really need to hear from responsible Democrats!
You're talking prevention. Control. People who marry others and then try to control them are considered troubled.

Who's preventing you from having the tools? Do a background check if you feel paranoid. Or, better yet, spend time with your intended, get to know him/her well, you'll see if this person is living above his means.

Also, if a spouse applies for a credit card in his/her name alone, that does not indicate that there will be irresponsible spending.

I don't want any political party having a platform which interferes in any way with the family.

These comments come from someone who has traditionally voted Democrat. I am not a Democrat now, nor a Republican. Neither party is behaving responsibly now, in my opinion. The Republicans are spending so irresponsibly, that's the debt you, DC, ought to be worried about. And the Democrats really don't have any organization, no aim.
 

DivineComedy

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tryreading said:
You're talking prevention. Control. People who marry others and then try to control them are considered troubled.

Who's preventing you from having the tools? Do a background check if you feel paranoid. Or, better yet, spend time with your intended, get to know him/her well, you'll see if this person is living above his means.

Also, if a spouse applies for a credit card in his/her name alone, that does not indicate that there will be irresponsible spending.

I don't want any political party having a platform which interferes in any way with the family.

These comments come from someone who has traditionally voted Democrat. I am not a Democrat now, nor a Republican. Neither party is behaving responsibly now, in my opinion. The Republicans are spending so irresponsibly, that's the debt you, DC, ought to be worried about. And the Democrats really don't have any organization, no aim.
I am talking about knowledge and consent. This is not about control of a “single“ person! I do not want to control a “single” person, or deprive a spouse of equal rights in the marriage, but I do want the knowledge and consent and power to stop a creditor or usurer from handing out irresponsible debt in my “married” household. It is about household management, which for married couples is a joint responsibility that requires knowledge and consent, for without knowledge and consent there can be no effective household management or equal rights.

People like you through their lawmakers are preventing spouses from having the tools to manage their household, and a hands off Libertarian/Republican approach can allow intrusion into the married household by creditors and usurers like VISA (that think hiding debt from a spouse is funny). Regulations and wholesome laws that provide knowledge and consent are necessary for household management, especially in the modern world where one spouse is no longer legally assumed or considered the head of the household. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html A snooping background check each month is not financially feasible, and since a couple could be married for more than a decade before a problem arises it still does not change “until death do us part;” I want to pay my family’s debts, but I want to know what they are in real time and have the power to manage them. It is more feasible to require consent from both spouses before the creditor or usurer is allowed to hand out crushing irresponsible debt to a member of a truly “married” household.

Responsibility in the management of a household debt requires knowledge and consent of that debt. Circumstances and people can change, and single people make mistakes all the time. That is why in a married household the creditors and usurers handing out irresponsible debt should not be able to legally prey upon the weak and lop the flesh in two separate halves. If the flesh wishes to tear itself asunder for financial reasons let there be knowledge and consent in the prenuptial or whatever legal proceeding thereafter.

I do not want government interference or the weakening of the family by depriving the married household of knowledge and consent, but I do want to interfere with the lack of knowledge and consent that is manifest in the irresponsible debt handed out by creditors and usurers like VISA (that think hiding debt from a spouse is funny).

We should be worried about all of the irresponsible debt. Consider that this Nation is the people’s household, and we the people are married to the government, what would you say if the government could have run up the debt without the knowledge of we the people? We have the knowledge and the power of consent (through our vote) with respect to our government, which is all I want for household management: I do not want a revolution or a divorce.

I still want to hear from responsible Democrats!
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
DivineComedy said:
People like you through their lawmakers are preventing spouses from having the tools to manage their household, and a hands off Libertarian/Republican approach can allow intrusion into the married household by creditors and usurers like VISA (that think hiding debt from a spouse is funny). Regulations and wholesome laws that provide knowledge and consent are necessary for household management, especially in the modern world where one spouse is no longer legally assumed or considered the head of the household.
I'm not preventing anybody from doing anything. You are fixated on this point, so why don't you do something about it, in the free market? Let's keep government out of it.

Start a company, which, through information acquired from the three credit reporting companies, automatically notifies spouses when their better half, or in your scenario, their debtor half, applies for credit of any kind. To avoid lawsuits, notify only married people who have signed up with your company. This service could also be offered to couples who only want to live together, hetero or same sex. Could be offered to roommates (some would want to know if their rent co-payer were building lots of debt). You could maybe make lots of money. The couples would pay you fees, you would pay a percentage of that to the reporting companies. This private notification service offers people a choice, which legislation wouldn't.

I would prefer that capitalism, not another government intrusion, solve this problem, if it is a problem. By the way, I was a responsible Democrat for a long time. Now I am a responsible non-Democrat, non-Republican. Can't stand either party right now.
 

DivineComedy

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tryreading said:
I'm not preventing anybody from doing anything. You are fixated on this point, so why don't you do something about it, in the free market? Let's keep government out of it.

Start a company, which, through information acquired from the three credit reporting companies, automatically notifies spouses when their better half, or in your scenario, their debtor half, applies for credit of any kind. To avoid lawsuits, notify only married people who have signed up with your company. This service could also be offered to couples who only want to live together, hetero or same sex. Could be offered to roommates (some would want to know if their rent co-payer were building lots of debt). You could maybe make lots of money. The couples would pay you fees, you would pay a percentage of that to the reporting companies. This private notification service offers people a choice, which legislation wouldn't.

I would prefer that capitalism, not another government intrusion, solve this problem, if it is a problem. By the way, I was a responsible Democrat for a long time. Now I am a responsible non-Democrat, non-Republican. Can't stand either party right now.
“He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin, whether a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them. In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race may continue (and this is a union which is formed, not of deliberate purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants, mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of themselves), and of natural ruler and subject, that both may be preserved.” (Aristotle) http://www.4literature.net/Aristotle/Politics/

Tryreading although Aristotle is ancient, and much has changed culturally with regard to slavery and women‘s rights, and now gay marriage, the logic with regard to household management is still worth reading.

In the married household of today the wife is no longer automatically considered subservient to a master or “man of the house,” and it is only a shame if we have no equal rights (of knowledge and consent logically required for proper household management) under the law. For the most part we have culturally evolved so that each spouse is equally the master in the household, but a hidden irresponsible debt given or brought into the married household deprives one spouse of the equal rights of household management. The preservation of equal rights is something that can only be preserved by laws, and not by an economic system.

You place the economic system of capitalism above the first origin of the state, which is the household, and would require that individuals within the “married” household or “union of those who cannot exist without each other” buy the tools needed to manage the household, therefore, such a system can only dissolve the household, village, and state into individuals that have no rights except that which they can afford to purchase. You have not only placed the capitalist state above the household, as if capitalism is the most natural state, but you have placed the capitalists in my bed where I must actually pay the capitalists to find out whether they have been copulating with my spouse and sharing my wealth.

A system of capitalism, or so-called “free-market system,” that is a State motivated by profit, can not be a “free” State IF a member of the married household must buy off the capitalist to find out if they are in the nuptial bed sharing their wealth.

Your preferred system of government allows for a hidden debt and only offers a spouse the ability to buy information as to who has invaded the household, and even if your capitalist system offered the ability to buy off the invaders, and prevent their intrusion, it is a system of government that I can not afford to support.

If it is reduced down to purchasing the ability to manage the married household, or sharing the wealth with a usurer that thinks hiding a debt from a spouse is funny, we are left with only three logical choices. The first choice is to dissolve the institution of marriage, but I for one have sworn an oath to love for better or worse until death do us part, so dissolution of the marriage or beating the spouse is not an option. The second choice is to try and get the government to change the laws so as to protect the household from unwanted intrusion, and to have knowledge and consent before an irresponsible debt invades the married household, not just for liberty and household security but for posterity. The third choice is to use the other method of purchasing FREEDOM, and it is as old as picking a bone up off the floor of the cave to bash in the heads of the predators that threaten the household wealth. The second method is the obviously preferable method, as it has the best chance of overall success, and it preserves the ECONOMIC system of capitalism, and it is more civilized in the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you make survival of the fittest pocket book our form of government you may one day find millions wielding a large bone, and then you just might lose your capitalist state.

*****

I still would really like to hear from responsible civilized Democrats.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
DivineComedy said:
The preservation of equal rights is something that can only be preserved by laws, and not by an economic system.
Our rights are constitutionally protected.

DivineComedy said:
... and would require that individuals within the “married” household or “union of those who cannot exist without each other” buy the tools needed...
I wouldn't require anything, my idea would be optional. If you have a better idea that is non-governmental, state it.

DivineComedy said:
...an oath to love for better or worse until death do us part, so dissolution of the marriage or beating the spouse is not an option.
Finally you get it - For better or worse. Not for better or else the government will be here to 'help' us.

DivineComedy said:
The second choice is to try and get the government to change the laws so as to protect the household from unwanted intrusion
Did you know that intrusion from the government, into our bedrooms, illegalized contraceptives, and that wasn't changed until the 20th century? Just an example off the top of my head. You want these people nosing into your marriage?

You quote Aristotle, I quote Ralph Cramden: "Good Night, Alice!"
 

DivineComedy

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tryreading said:
Our rights are constitutionally protected.



I wouldn't require anything, my idea would be optional. If you have a better idea that is non-governmental, state it.



Finally you get it - For better or worse. Not for better or else the government will be here to 'help' us.



Did you know that intrusion from the government, into our bedrooms, illegalized contraceptives, and that wasn't changed until the 20th century? Just an example off the top of my head. You want these people nosing into your marriage?

You quote Aristotle, I quote Ralph Cramden: "Good Night, Alice!"
Our constitutional rights are only protected by statutes that we the people get our legislatures to enact, by the interpretation of those laws by the Supreme Court (that an Andrew Jackson type would ignore for a trail of tears), and let us not forget the Second Amendment that Edward Kennedy thinks is there to only serve the interests of the State.

The only non-governmental method would be to take the law into one’s own hands. Do you think the “liberals” would call it an “insurgency,” and blame it on Bush, with Jimmy Carter calling for “peace” and withdrawal of the troops, if even half of those that recently filed for bankruptcy were to join?

I do not want to be bailed out like Chrysler, the debt I knew about I could have paid in one lump sum without going further into debt, but the “one flesh“ acquired a debt that I had no knowledge or consent to prevent. I want the laws of the government to respect us, by not “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” by respecting the sanctity of the “one flesh” of holy matrimony. If the government will not pass banking laws prohibiting a hidden debt by giving both spouses knowledge and consent before debt is acquired by the married household, then usurers like VISA (that think hiding a debt from a spouse is funny) should have no legal recourse under the law except to write their irresponsibly given debt off as bad business. They then could refuse to do business with my spouse, which is fine by me. They also should not be able to write off the loss for tax purposes. All I want is for the law to be fair for the sake of household management, is it too much to ask?

I do not want usurers like VISA (that think hiding a debt from a spouse is funny) nosing into my marriage and legally copulating with my spouse behind my back, but I want the laws to respect my equal rights to knowledge and consent before a crushing debt is acquired by the “one flesh.”

Ralph Cramden would probably get a visit from the police for just saying, “One of these days. One of these days! Pow! right in the kisser!”
 
Top Bottom