I have to be honest and object to the idea that little or nothing in the debate last night was of sepcific concern to women. Seems to me it all was of interest to women and men alike.

I felt the same way. The mere mention of the "VAWA" by Biden reminded me of why I cannot vote for a ticket that includes Biden. My 401K is evaporating and I will be working into the grave as a result, but I must also be reminded of federal legislation built on the stereotype of men as nothing but perpetrators? No thanks! I was unaware that McCain had voted against this offensive legislation until Biden told us the other night - makes me reconsider my decision to go third party!

Posted at October 4, 2008 4:23 PM in response to Biden vs. Palin: Where was half the population?

Thanks for your response. I thought maybe I was losing it or simply had lost my ability to communicate. Yep, "put up or shut up" is one way to put it - create a moral obligation on the part of the father upfront, then if the courts need to get involved later to force him to meet his obligations, they have a basis for their reasoning. A child would also benefit from having two voluntarily committed parents.

Posted at September 27, 2008 11:20 PM in response to Faith, Politics, Fathers

peaceMF,

Incredibly good job of twisting what I posted. My point was clear, neither person should be able to force parenthood upon the other. Palin's daughter would still maintain the ultimate choice of what to do with her pregancy and her body, but the "he" who "got her pregnant" (since, like all women, she is only a victim and never an active participant!) would also be able to choose whether he would be a parent to that child or immediately relinguish all parental rights or reponsibilities. He would have to immediately make his decision, since her decision may be dependent upon what he decides. She could complete the pregnancy, or terminate it, regardless of the input from his decision since it is still her body and he can no more force his decision on her than she can force her's upon him. This is NOT complicated, in-spite of efforts of some to make it so.

Posted at September 27, 2008 2:44 PM in response to Faith, Politics, Fathers

Interesting. My concern is the ability of Obama to "close the deal" on any issue. Great to talk about an issue, but if you don't take a position on how the government can change to support that issue, you really have done nothing to help. In this case, the best position to take to endorse fatherhood would be to extend to potential father's the same rights potential mother's already enjoy - reproductive choice. No person could force another to become a parent without their express consent - making reproductive choice a true Constitutional right. This not only helps to solidify a right for individuals, it creates a solid moral foundation for both father's and mother's being committed to their children. The entire concept of one person being able to force their choice upon another, with the full backing of government force, must end if we are to move forward on this issue. Fathers who CHOOSE to be fathers can rightfully be forced to take responsibility for that decision - any other approach is an offense to the entire concept of reproductive choice.

Posted at September 26, 2008 9:09 PM in response to Faith, Politics, Fathers

Yes, Hoppy makes good points. Part of my issue with the original author, and I've only listened to the NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92213600)
is what she proposes seems more like an add-on to Social Security - which is a program itself that has little confidence with younger workers. Of concern is having another program that, falsely, gives the impression to workers that their retirement income is secure based upon incredibly minimal contributions while they are working. Yes, if the people receiving 401K tax deductions are incredibly successful with their investment decisions, then they will help subsidize with their taxes on 401K withdrawals those were are much less successful in their retirement years. Expecting more than that is really wishful thinking.

Posted at August 18, 2008 1:00 PM in response to Asking For More Than 401(k)s

I'm somewhat shocked by the numbers proposed by this author. My view is simple (as someone who lost a military pension during the reductions in the 1990s) - the government will not be given any additional control of people's retirements until they satisfy the demands of American workers to secure the existing system - Social Security. The last attempt to reform Social Security resulted in the "Do Nothing" option winning out. As someone who participated for over 10 years in the "future compensation" system of the USAF, and lost the future compensation when the government chose to significantly reduce the number of people in the military, allowing the government to control even more of my future retirement is NOT a viable option. I save at the maximum amounts into my 401K for the simplest or reason - I have nothing else beyond a shaky promise of social security. There is no government subsidy of my 401K dollars - my employer does a 3% match and the government allows me to use pre-tax dollars, but I have nothing else and the use of pre-tax dollars is little more than an additional incentive beyond the pure fear of losing the remaining money I have saved into the Social Security system. Due to the late start in retirement savings (having trusted my first "career" employer's promises) I am now saving over 40% of my gross income including SS, 401K, and after-tax investment. I don't consider anyone receiving their income via W2 wages "rich" and am shocked by the approach advocated by the book author.

Posted at August 18, 2008 10:40 AM in response to Asking For More Than 401(k)s

Jim,

The series of articles you write about has certainly been interesting. As someone who once was very involved in politics, I do enjoy following the trends, but admit to being pretty burned out when it comes to active involvement anymore - too many serious disappointments I suppose. The "winner take all" mentality - treating the other side like the embodiment of evil - has truly left me cool to the whole "political solution" concept. Obama makes claims to being a different kind of politician, but then makes the same triangulations we have observed politicians doing for years. Some of the solutions pined for in the postings - small city-states built in order to allow for true "community" - and the elimination of the oil-based energy system sound truly wonderful. That is until the macro-level analysis makes clear the current population of the planet has been achieved through the extensive use of fossil fuels for not only energy, but food production using artificial fertilizers also made from oil. I do expect in the future, a few hundred years, there will be the utopian small cities some imagine - but only after a serious reduction in the human population of the planet. We simply cannot sustain the current population without the articial means we have developed. Shorter term, we shall see if we can even sustain the current social programs which are woefully underfunded!

Posted at July 19, 2008 2:24 AM in response to Changing the Debate -- For Real

The 2008 cap on Social Security taxes is $102,000 - meaning a couple both earning at the cap are paying $25K in Social Security tax and another $6K in Medicare taxes for a total of $31K annually exclusive of income taxes.

Posted at May 31, 2008 5:54 PM in response to A Huge (and Unfair) Tax Bill on Top of Foreclosure

No. I think they have a problem they can't resolve. It is easier to get money from we working stiffs as our money is not "mobile" in the international markets and through differing currencies. Wealthy people can move their money easily to more favorable locales and may actually keep most of it out of the US to avoid currency hits or taxes. I think if they do too much to raise the taxes locally, it would just force more money out of the country. In such a liquid situation, taxes become a competitive issue amongst jurisdictions, much as they are amongst local jurisdictions within the US. Just look how much local governments will discount or completely forgive taxes to attract a business to their county or town. They give the business owners huge breaks, but then go after the people working for the business in an effort to recover revenue from the little guy who can't fight them.

Posted at March 6, 2008 5:38 PM in response to Tax the Rich-- Lots of Cash in an Undertaxed Group

Ellen,

Yes, it certanly might do less harm for people such as this to spend more time off the job. As we have discussed, he is probably in a lower marginal tax bracket than most of us "middle" income workers without dependents. He is likely in a 15% bracket through a capital gains strategy as many investor type people tend to be. Certainly a better deal than the 50% bracket many of us currently experience!

Posted at March 6, 2008 2:43 PM in response to Tax the Rich-- Lots of Cash in an Undertaxed Group