Jail/Prisons & Insanity.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

My plan is to make law that would require the child support be based as percentages and not set fixed amounts.

See my campain website with child support platform,
here at, www.ElectCusick.BraveHost.com/ChildSupport.html

What percenatge would it be per child?

Originally Posted by Ken King

What percenatge would it be per child?

Child support can not be based on a per child basis, the percentage rate must not go over 25% of take home pay per the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act (not the c/s garnishment link given before here). Taking the 26 -65 percentage is justification for violent rebellion - IMO.

We can not say $25. per child anymore then saying 25% per child because the parent only has a limited sourse of income so the amount has to be based on the separated parent's ability to pay and not per child. If the parent makes nothing then a percentage of nothing is nothing but if the parent makes more then the percentage creates more child support being paid. The hard set fixed amounts criple the paying parents.

When the law demands more money then the parent's ability to pay then we get deadbroke parents filling up the jails which we have now.

[residentofcre]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

Child support can not be based on a per child basis, the percentage rate must not go over 25% of take home pay per the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act (not the c/s garnishment link given before here). Taking the 26 -65 percentage is justification for violent rebellion - IMO.

We can not say $25. per child anymore then saying 25% per child because the parent only has a limited sourse of income so the amount has to be based on the separated parent's ability to pay and not per child. If the parent makes nothing then a percentage of nothing is nothing but if the parent makes more then the percentage creates more child support being paid. The hard set fixed amounts criple the paying parents.

When the law demands more money then the parent's ability to pay then we get deadbroke parents filling up the jails which we have now.

It's been a while since I deducted child support from an employee's check but the way it use to work would protect the parent somewhat.

Support Enforcement contacts the employer to verify the wages and hours a person makes. Then they issue an order to pay support. The paycheck is never allowed to go below minimum wage. Therefore... your argument that deadbroke parents are jailed for failure to pay is not really an argument....

If a person can only find employment at minimum wage then they should petition the court for a hearing on the amount. There is also some consideration given to those who only make a little over minimum wage.

The biggest problem with Support Enforcement is that people don't really understand the legal aspects and they can't afford lawyers that can explain it to them.

If I were going to change the system... I would ask for a reader friendly brochure that explains the rights of both sides of the question. That way non-custodial parents would have protection... and because the system works smoother and the custodial parent is well informed... they will recieve the support they need.

People seem to work together better when they understand the process....

The goal, however, always has to be the best interests of the children.

[vraiblonde]

JPC, you are not going to get anyone to agree with your campaign platform. Parents - both custodial and non-custodial - have a moral obligation to provide for their children. End of story.

The fact that you not only abandoned your child, but then you went and committed a crime to protest your obligation says something about you. NOW you are adding insult to injury by using your lack of responsiblity as a political campaign.

How does your son feel about all this? "Yes, little JPC Jr, Daddy would rather go to jail than provide for you and make sure you have the things you need."

I'm stunned that you don't see how reprehensible this is.

Originally Posted by Toxick

Do you want to know what I find really degrading about this whole situation? Consider for a moment your stance on these "relocatable fireboxes" or whatever term you want to affix to classroom trailers. These trailers are adequate for teaching. They are adequately safe for children. They are adequate enough to get the job done - but it is your contention that "the children deserve better".

HOWEVER:

When it comes to the child support issue, you defend the neglect of deadbeat parents, and you throw around terms like, "The children are provided for," either by their custodial parent, who makes enough to support the children alone, or by their stepparent who makes enough to support them, or by a welfare checks and WIC programs which can support them.

The difference for me dealing with children in classroom trailers as compared to my position on child support is because I am trying to keep the perspective on what the State and the government laws have to do with these issues. Giving emotional feelings in the issue distorts the issue. Emotion are always an enemy to true justice.

The law is required to provide safe and decent schooling while the parents are to raise their own children so I consider as to how much law is right for child support and how much law for the schools and leave the judgementalism to God. Putting emotions into the issue is detrimental to sound reasoning, so I keep my emotions in check.

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

JPC, you are not going to get anyone to agree with your campaign platform. Parents - both custodial and non-custodial - have a moral obligation to provide for their children. End of story.

I have said, and will say again, that I would agree with taking percentages but the present system demands only fixed set amounts which make the child support unjust and oppressive and it has created the big problems of non payment and deadbroke parents in jail facing demands for child support that they can not possibly pay. So I am saying to do it right and just and the posters here are just as wrong as the law is.

The fact that you and others will not consider reason is a sad sign that more strenuos efforts are probably going to arrise. That will be fine by me.

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

The difference for me dealing with children in classroom trailers as compared to my position on child support is because I am trying to keep the perspective on what the State and the government laws have to do with these issues. Giving emotional feelings in the issue distorts the issue. Emotion are always an enemy to true justice.

Its a simple inconsistancy on your part based on whatever is convenient to whichever agenda you're currently raving about.

I say that your entire platform is based on emotional knee-jerkism.

You feel you've somehow been slighted by the court system because they wanted to make you pay your fair share, which required more sacrifice on your part than you were willing to make - you lashed out before by damaging public property, and you're lashing out now.

If you were really suppressing your emotions, then relocatable trailer classrooms would be adequate locations for education unless they spontaneously combusted more than once per school year.

Not to mention your (over)use of emotionally charged phrases such as "firebox" and "columbine-style schools" "uncontrolled growth" and "oligarchy", all of which are glaring examples of your unbridaled APPEALS TO EMOTIONS, so don't hand me this "emotion is the enemy of justice" crap, because both you and I know it's a load of hogwash.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

The law is required to provide safe and decent schooling while the parents are to raise their own children so I consider as to how much law is right for child support and how much law for the schools and leave the judgementalism to God.

Well, when a parent decides that he no longer wishes to pay for the upbringing of his progeny, the state is obligated to that child - who is a ALSO citizen of the state - to ensure they also receive fair treatment, and that includes the demand of financial support from their parents (both parents, assuming they're still alive) until they are able to provide for themselves.

It is not fair to dump it all on the ex-spouse.

It is not fair to dump it on their new spouses.

And it SURE AS HELL IS NOT FAIR to dump it on the taxpayer - i.e. ME.



Your unfounded belief that it is your god-given right to do these things is why you are considered by the vast majority of your potential constituants to be a reprehensible individual.

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

I have said, and will say again, that I would agree with taking percentages but the present system demands only fixed set amounts which make the child support unjust and

These percentages, How would you derive them? Based on what you think is fair to the parent, or what based on what ensures the child will be provided for fairly by both parents?

Because in ALL cases - ALL CASES - provisions for the child trumps the parents desire to keep their money.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

The fact that you and others will not consider reason is a sad sign that

Not consider reason?


Thou, hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.




And disagreeing with you is not 'not considering reason'. I've based my views on child support long before you came around. And often have I sided with the non-custodial parent.

But the non-custodial parent behind whom I will stand is one who pays his child-support. All of it.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

I have said, and will say again, that I would agree with taking percentages but the present system demands only fixed set amounts

Then they must have changed it since my ex and I set a child support amount.

There is a formula they go by, based on the income of both parents. There is no "set amount" that everyone is required to pay regardless of their income, to my knowledge.

The fact that you and others will not consider reason is a sad sign that more strenuos efforts are probably going to arrise. That will be fine by me.

If you are the only person in the state of Maryland who is "right" on this issue, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for all the wrong people who make laws (and those of us who support said wrong laws) to change them anytime soon.

Don't you find it even the slightest bit curious that YOU are the only one who is "right" about this issue?

Originally Posted by Toxick

I say that your entire platform is based on emotional knee-jerkism.

You feel you've somehow been slighted by the court system because they wanted to make you pay your fair share, which required more sacrifice on your part than you were willing to make - you lashed out before by damaging public property, and you're lashing out now.

It is not true, my case is long closed. I do not have to put up with this crap except that I want to help the other families being hurt by the unjust child support laws. That is a thought out decision and not an emtional response.

Originally Posted by Toxick

Not to mention your (over)use of emotionally charged phrases such as "firebox" and "columbine-style schools" "uncontrolled growth" and "oligarchy", all of which are glaring examples of your unbridaled APPEALS TO EMOTIONS, so don't hand me this "emotion is the enemy of justice" crap, because both you and I know it's a load of hogwash.

I do give the emotionally charged retoric out to the dumb masses because that is what the mob mentality hears but I do not fall prey to the simple words myself. To lead sheep one must deal with them on the sheep level but I am not a sheep myself, and I do ask others to rise above that sheep mentality and join me on the higher plain. We all have choices.

Originally Posted by Toxick

Your unfounded belief that it is your god-given right to do these things is why you are considered by the vast majority of your potential constituants to be a reprehensible individual.

The vast majority of constituants have not spoken yet till election day, but as for this SOMD Forum I think Toxick is correct that the outspoken posters here do not respect the "God-given rights" and that is why they fail to see what I am telling them in these postings. I am here dealing with Godless posters here so they do not understand the morality issues.