Parenting Police.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by missperky

Good luck on that. You need help.

Well I am not seeking help to get it done, and I do not plan to push that idea if I were to get elected, but it is an idea that atleast addresses the real problem instead of the promoting divorce and promoting separation laws that we do have now.

[missperky (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Well I am not seeking help to get it done, and I do not plan to push that idea if I were to get elected, but it is an idea that atleast addresses the real problem instead of the promoting divorce and promoting separation laws that we do have now.

How about getting the non-custodials to pay CS? That's a good start.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

That is assuming some thing that is not true.

By what standard is it not true that there are families living below the poverty level due in large part to lack of child support? I used an unbiased source, the Census Bureau, and found that roughly 1/3 of all custodial parents - who are not receiving their child support as ordered - live at or below the poverty level, and that the increase in the amount of single custodial mothers who work (read, are not there for their children as much because of non-supporting co-parents) doubled in ten years. What's your source of misinformation?

I certainly have been trying to point out that child support is based on lies and now you want me to assume the lies are true. Well no, I will not.

I give you the source of my truth, show me the source of your "truth".

.....no, we are not going to pretent that the custodial and children are in desperate need to justify the dirty thievery of child support.

Once again, there is no thievery. This is unsupported, dishonest slander to a useful institution that the vast majority of Americans believe in (at least in concept). And, no one is pretending anything, there are children out there in need. Ask your son, he'll tell you how it was.

I suggest that we stick with the truth, lets stick with reality. In the poorest of poor families the gov takes the child support that gets paid by the separated parents and the gov keeps the c/s cash.

Why would you suggest sticking to the truth, and then go straight to a lie? We've talked about this ad nauseum, I thought you would at least try a new lie! The state recovers a portion of temporary assistance from the miniscule percentage of custodial parents that ask for it. That's it. If you have something new, try it, but this one is a virtual bold-faced lie due to your ignorance of the reality. So, follow your own rule (which, by the way, has been mine from the start) and try the truth and reality, not your world.

Our laws lock parents into a cage and rob the parents of their livelihood and it is based on those same lying assumptions of immaginary families with immaginary hunger and immaginary needs. While child support enforcement is real live stealing and real live injustice and real live jails and slander.

Back up your lie here, or admit it is one. I've yet to see a parent who is trying, even in the slightest, to support their child locked up. That wouldn't be legal. A child's needs are certainly not imaginary. Supporting your own child is not injustice, it's actually justice. You slander every non-custodial parent who support their child as caving in, as being a servant to a false master. Stop your slander and back up your lies with facts.

Well at least this takes us back to parenting police, because it is not your place nor the gov place to teach other parents as to how to raise their own children. You and the law are way out of line. Big daddy TP and big daddy gov can both go to hell.

While I appreciate you offering a trip of your home, no thank you. As you didn't raise your child (by your own admission of "deserting" your family), I'm not trying to tell you how to raise your child. It's too late. A real man did that for you. I'm trying to teach you that you were wrong, to admit it and try and learn from it so you can help your own son not be as big a piece of crap as you. Ask him. Ask him how good it was to hear that you didn't feel sorry to his mother for making her life harder - hear that on her grave. Ask him how it felt to know that you chose to not be there out of childish anger at being held responsible to him - so much anger you'd rather be housed and fed by my tax dollars than give him a nickel. Ask him, maybe you'll learn from him what you refuse to learn from me.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

That is why the divorces and the separations are the real problem.

If one wants two parents to raise the child then the two parents need to stay together with the child.

The root of that problem is in the gov getting into the religious institution of marriage and the gov granting the easy writ of divorce that undermined the Church's authority and now we have a secular / gov mess to a religious problem.

Child support is really gov subsidized adultery.

Okay, let's use your own form of disconnected-from-reality "logic" here. They're legally still married, you have your way. And, as you say, they've separated. But, they're still married. NOW what kind of abuse is it when the parent who chose to separate themselves from their child won't support?

[missperky (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

Okay, let's use your own form of disconnected-from-reality "logic" here. They're legally still married, you have your way. And, as you say, they've separated. But, they're still married. NOW what kind of abuse is it when the parent who chose to separate themselves from their child won't support?

He hasn't thought that out yet.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

By what standard is it not true that there are families living below the poverty level due in large part to lack of child support? I used an unbiased source, the Census Bureau, and found that roughly 1/3 of all custodial parents - who are not receiving their child support as ordered - live at or below the poverty level, and that the increase in the amount of single custodial mothers who work (read, are not there for their children as much because of non-supporting co-parents) doubled in ten years. What's your source of misinformation?I give you the source of my truth, show me the source of your "truth".

You are not giving any sourse of truth because you give no link. The poster "hvp" gave a link for his and I showed how he misrepresented the information. His link was so damning that I put it on my campaign website HERE, see lower right.

Anyway, even without a link I can tell you that the Census Bureau records families on welfare as being poverty level but on welfare the custodial and the children have ALL of their needs met to overflowing through the gov assistance, so the Census report is saying the family is in poverty but they are right comfortable too at the same time.

Originally Posted by This_person

there are children out there in need.

There are children in need and that is very true, but the need has nothing to do with receiving child support or not receiving it. The working poor use their money for partying and for vanity and that is why giving them more money does not often help the working poor. I still agree that their jobs do need to pay a decent livable salary but our society pushes people into poverty conditions. Plus the artificial inflation from greed growth takes away much of the working poor's real spending ability. But it has nothing to do with child support.

Originally Posted by This_person

The state recovers a portion of temporary assistance from the miniscule percentage of custodial parents that ask for it. That's it. If you have something new, try it,

It is true as TP says that the State only takes a small amount of child support from only a few custodials and their children - but those "few" are the poorest of the poor custodials and the poorest of the poor children is the "few" that the gov takes the child support payments from. The richer custodials and children get all of their stolen child support but the "few" poorest of the poor have the gov keeping the loot.

Originally Posted by This_person

I've yet to see a parent who is trying, even in the slightest, to support their child locked up. That wouldn't be legal.

Well no parent can support their children while locked up except if the parent were rich but the rich do not go to jail for child support - only poor and impoverished parents go to jail for child support.

But further, the unjust child support system does not accept partial c/s payments as being sufficient. I know they do physically take the partial payment but the parents go to jail anyway. A partial payment does not satisfy the thievery as it demands full payment. And if a slandered parent goes to the child support office with a partial payment in hand then the agents will take the money and arrest the parent on the spot. They will not say any crap like : "At least the parent is trying", no, the parent goes to jail.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by missperky

How about getting the non-custodials to pay CS? That's a good start.

I really believe it is wrong in many ways for anybody to pay a thief, and wrong to try to persuade them to pay the thievery.

So it would not be a "good" start as it would be a very wrong start.

Plus I believe to get the separated parents to all (or significant majority) to pay the unjust child support is completely impossible.

Whether the separated parents are highly moral or lowest of virtue they still know instinctively when they are getting robbed and cheated and the parents will naturally resist the c/s thievery forever more.

The gov can use more force and it will need lots more force but it is never going to get human beings / parents to submit to thieves.

That will never happen. What will happen is the increasing force will create more resistance until it breaks out into society as some form of civil war (my prediction) and more blood will flow.

I am the non violent guy giving the message, but others are not nice like me.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

NOW what kind of abuse is it when the parent who chose to separate themselves from their child and won't support?

There is no abuse there at all - none.

[RoseRed (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Child support is really gov subsidized adultery.

Absurd.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

That link that "hvp" uses says the child support is not paid by deadbroke parents and the gov is trying to get the separated parents a job and even gov created jobs and that link site says that the gov is prepared to forgive the debt that the parents pay to the gov called child support.

In one breath you are on the verge of praising the government...

Originally Posted by JPC sr

The gov wants to educate parents to be passive sheep that serve their masters without conflict, but not I.

... and in the next breath you resume condemning the government.

The education and counseling offered by the government is how state/fed officials are helping people to better themselves. Either you agree with it or you don't, I don't care which... but you can't pick both.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

The poster "hvp" gave a link for his and I showed how he misrepresented the information. His link was so damning that I put it on my campaign website HERE, see lower right.

Hey doofus, you picked one small section of my laborious post to comment on... and even then you - YOU - misrepresented what was in the article.

You gave your interpretation, whereas I posted the entire actual paragraph you misrepresented and even broke it down for you.

Hopefully anyone who might actually visit your site and link over to the CBPP article will read it for themselves and realize how skewed your reality is. You are so retarded you are providing links that demonstrate your errors and lies; your reputation is so devalued you'd be lucky to be voted in as a State House janitor.


And you never did answer this...

Originally Posted by hvp05

All we are taken back to is what a steaming, hypocritical pile of crap you are. You speak out of one side of your mouth demonizing "the government" and all laws, even calling for anarchy. Meanwhile, out of the other side of your mouth, you say the government should pick up the tab for all the babies that are abandoned. Write as many laws for as many programs as is necessary, and toss in a truckload of bureaucracy for good measure... as long as the deadbeat dumbazz doesn't have to pay.

You double-talking bottom-feeder.