Jail/Prisons & Insanity.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

What KK says here is just negative opinion based on negative perspective and giving a negative conclusion, and I see this as the foundational ideology of the present child support system that only degrades "other parents."

Okay then, how will switching to a percentage of one parent’s pay work any better than setting an amount determined by combined income of both parents? How will this better serve the needs of the children, as that is what the support is for is it not? Explain it to me Mr. Wizard?

You ran away when faced with the requirement to pay child support, we have heard many posters on these boards talk about ex-spouses working under the table to avoid making payments or job hopping when their employer finds out about the support order and starts withholding the amount, and then there are all of those deadbeat brethren of yours already in jail for failing to comply. What makes your idea of going back to a system that used to be in effect in Maryland any better then what is in place now?

For me it is a matter of faith, as in faith that evil and brute force are fundamentally a weakness and so it signifies that child support is doomed to fail and to fall. Faith that the lies and slander, stealing, brute force, injustice, thievery, all these evils of the present child support system has doomed it to fall as it is already failing, and so I have full confidence and faith that no matter what happens with me then the child support will keep creating its own destruction, and rightly so.

Evil and brute force would be setting a fixed percentage that one could not appeal or show would cause an undue hardship upon the payee. This is the system that you advocate, is it not? The current system takes into account both parents income and then fixes a rate of support that is proportionately shared by the parents. It also takes into account other factors that the fixed percentage programs do not take into consideration.

If I do get elected then I can help to reform the unjust system by legal and non violent and respectful means.

No worries here mate, you won’t be elected

That and stop the reckless out-of-control growth at the same time.

The all powerful JPC claims he knows how to stop growth. Hell, he can’t even accurately show where the majority of growth we are experiencing is coming from, so how are you going to control it Dumbass?

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

It gained me very much personally.

Yeah, three hots and a cot. Always the materialistic bastard, huh?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

It gained me very much personally. And it improved my self esteem. And it gave me great new insight into the concept of civil disobediance. And it was fun. Well I do not mean that I would take up arms myself. I mean that the citizens have a right to defend themselves against a tyranical and unjust government. It actually troubles me some that American parents lack the backbone or the confidence to stand up for themselves. The custodials sell out to the Devil and the separated parents let them do it. Perhaps the parents just need the righteous judgement made known to them and then they will act, I hope so.

In the State of Maryland our State Constitution gives us the legal right to take up arms and fight against the child support injustice. That does not mean that I would do such a thing as I am not going to take up arms myself, but there is the right.

:

The right to bear arms does not give anyone the right to revolt against the government for not paying child support. It is ridiculous to think that anyone would even justify thinking of using force to protest paying child support. That will get you locked up quicker than not paying child support itself. Even endorsing this indirectly says that you are anti-government. All you are encouraging is anarchy.

The truth of the matter is that your children are your obligation. You have to be held accountable for their welfare just as you would expect your elected officials be held accountable for their actions. Forcing parents to pay child support is a needed necessity; otherwise many would not pay at all. People have to step up and accept responsibility for their own actions. That is the least they can do for their kids.

Instead of trying to skirt child support laws, why not advocate encouraging parents to take a more active role in their child’s life. It is time to set the example.

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

It is that you and the big brother gov has no right and no business to tell other people how to support their own children.

Wow - you have a point there.


Or rather - you WOULD have a point, if it weren't for the fact that I am paying for welfare children across the state.

That makes it very much my business.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

Especially since the children already have all of their physical needs completely filled already.

Once again - not true. And once again, not the point.

[buddy999]

Originally Posted by Eric

Instead of trying to skirt child support laws, why not advocate encouraging parents to take a more active role in their child’s life. It is time to set the example.

Amen to that!!

If more parents would take more responsibility to bring their children up with better moral standards our prison system would not be so overcrowded as it is today and people could feel safe walking down the street.

[Midnightrider]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

If some one choses to live in poverty then the gov bailing them out (as bob wrote) would be the gov screwing up the person's chosen life style. Thus again, in America we think we are free to chose and then the gov is to stay out. Poor parents have poor children and making laws that stop the poor from having children is rediculous and it will fail.

Why does not child support require at least $2,000. per month per parent ($48,000. per year from both parents) so then the children are at least middle class? Minimum bottom line c/s payments? Is not child support because the law cares about children? well then care middle class, why not?

When child support orders only $100. per week its $5,200. per year and that is still below poverty level. So how does that add up?

The dead-broke parents in jail have orders much less like $50. per week and it cost the gov $20,000. to $25,000. per year to lock up each one of the low income parents. At the rate of $25,000. the law could pay the full $100. per week in c/s and put some $20,000. back into the State's treasury for each parent.

It would be cheaper if the gov did bail them out as bob claims.

you really are the biggest idiot ever. the middle class figure you use would be for an adult who is paying all of the bills, child support is for the thing the child would need. It is expected that the custodial parent will supply certain things to their children, like a home and electricity.


And you do choose to live in poverty, but the Gov is paying you welfare and subsidizing your apartment, since we both agree that this is the gov violating your rights, how about you meet me at the gov center in leonardtown and we will get you off the dole, then you can truely be a free deadeat

Originally Posted by Ken King

Okay then, how will switching to a percentage of one parent’s pay work any better than setting an amount determined by combined income of both parents? How will this better serve the needs of the children, as that is what the support is for is it not? Explain it to me Mr. Wizard?

Saying / believing that child support is in urgent need because children are suffering and children need the money is blatantly not true. All the kids have all their physical needs completely filled already, and or, all have ready access to fullfill above and beyond any of their needs. That is the reality. Child support is just extra cash that does not fill any need at all - none.

The false claim that child support is a big problem because children are doing without is just an untrue justification to do injustice to the separated parents. I believe that people say / believe this untruth because it feeds into the self righteous ego, and the pretence that the government is playing "Robin Hood" in child support is such a pompous farce.

Switching to percentages instead of hard set fixed amounts would at least go back to following the law, and it would lower the over all injustice to a little more tolerable level, and it would stop or slow the nonsence of tacking on arrears based on zero income.

Child support is legally in the catagory of "Credit" and "Debt" and over the many years the credit - debt collectors became abusive so much that the gov made the "Fair Debt Act" Link here, to control the harassment of collections.

Laws are always made to protect society and protect the individual and never to give physical protection to the collector or "payee". There are laws that empower and assist the collectors but protection belongs to the citizen debtor or payer. Otherwise we would have slavery and extortion and brutality against American citizens based on usery, mammon and greed.

For child support the gov created the Child Support Guidelines with percentages, link here, These guidelines violate all decency in debt collection (only for c/s) and it authorizes the excessive garnishments just for child support collection. That Federal c/s law just side stepped all the State laws and goes arround all of Maryland's Tort laws and protections. Then the Courts went even further in the false belief that they were helping poor desperate children so the Courts ordered the hard set fixed amounts for c/s instead of the percentages that would have given some protection to the parents from the now present collection abuses (slight protection at 65 percent) and the Court was not geared to protect parents that were already slandered as "deadbeats" and the Courts believed the same untrue tales of poor suffering children doing without food or water on American streets and the Courts took the injustice to the next abusive level, but the fact remains that all the children already have all their physical needs filled already (excluding criminal abusive custodials), there is not one child suffering any real physical need because of not recieving the child support payment, the child support is just extra cash.

Therefore the reform of child support must give back decent lawful protection to the separated parents from the abuse, mistreatment and injustices that are still going on now by the child support collection.

Originally Posted by Eric

The right to bear arms does not give anyone the right to revolt against the government for not paying child support. It is ridiculous to think that anyone would even justify thinking of using force to protest paying child support. That will get you locked up quicker than not paying child support itself. Even endorsing this indirectly says that you are anti-government. All you are encouraging is anarchy.

I do agree that a civil resisting person would go to jail, but that is expected when people fight against legal injustices. George Washington would have been a criminal if the British had won. It is the price we must pay.

But still our laws and our traditions do agree with the citizens right to rebel against oppression and injustice, and child support does fit the shoe.

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

Saying / believing that child support is in urgent need because children are suffering and children need the money is blatantly not true. All the kids have all their physical needs completely filled already, and or, all have ready access to fullfill above and beyond any of their needs. That is the reality. Child support is just extra cash that does not fill any need at all - none.

The false claim that child support is a big problem because children are doing without is just an untrue justification to do injustice to the separated parents. I believe that people say / believe this untruth because it feeds into the self righteous ego, and the pretence that the government is playing "Robin Hood" in child support is such a pompous farce.

Switching to percentages instead of hard set fixed amounts would at least go back to following the law, and it would lower the over all injustice to a little more tolerable level, and it would stop or slow the nonsence of tacking on arrears based on zero income.

Child support is legally in the catagory of "Credit" and "Debt" and over the many years the credit - debt collectors became abusive so much that the gov made the "Fair Debt Act" Link here, to control the harassment of collections.

Laws are always made to protect society and protect the individual and never to give physical protection to the collector or "payee". There are laws that empower and assist the collectors but protection belongs to the citizen debtor or payer. Otherwise we would have slavery and extortion and brutality against American citizens based on usery, mammon and greed.

For child support the gov created the Child Support Guidelines with percentages, link here, These guidelines violate all decency in debt collection (only for c/s) and it authorizes the excessive garnishments just for child support collection. That Federal c/s law just side stepped all the State laws and goes arround all of Maryland's Tort laws and protections. Then the Courts went even further in the false belief that they were helping poor desperate children so the Courts ordered the hard set fixed amounts for c/s instead of the percentages that would have given some protection to the parents from the now present collection abuses (slight protection at 65 percent) and the Court was not geared to protect parents that were already slandered as "deadbeats" and the Courts believed the same untrue tales of poor suffering children doing without food or water on American streets and the Courts took the injustice to the next abusive level, but the fact remains that all the children already have all their physical needs filled already (excluding criminal abusive custodials), there is not one child suffering any real physical need because of not recieving the child support payment, the child support is just extra cash.

Therefore the reform of child support must give back decent lawful protection to the separated parents from the abuse, mistreatment and injustices that are still going on now by the child support collection.

Forcing people to fulfill their moral obligation to their children is a dirty job.

You keep claiming that the child's "physical needs are cared for already". Mark this down.......I agree. I agree with JPC This country will not allow a child to sit in the rain and starve to death because of a deadbeat, self centered, nasty, disgusting, rotten, immoral, dirt bag parent. So in effect JPC is stating the truth. The flawed logic in this is that the child's "minimal" needs are met and you state it as though ALL their needs are met up to a reasonable standard of living.

You see JPC the state legislature crafted a table that bases a standard of living based on the total combined income of the parents and assigns a "percentage" to each parent based on the ratio of earnings. Only a totally disgusting, scumbag, selfish, self centered jerk would look at their child and say "Crap, you have a roof and you are not losing weight, what the hell do I need to give you money for?" YOUR child deserves to live to a standard of living he would enjoy if you were still married to his mother. YOUR responsibility is to ensure that money is provided. Just because you were discarded by the woman does not absolve you of your obligation to provide the means for the child to have a comfortable standard of living. Only a heartless selfish pile of feces would cast a glance his child's way and say "He has food and doesn't get wet when it rains, screw them"

You see JPC you are sexist. You figure since you were tossed out like trash you are not going to go to any length to provide for your child because some of that money might spill over and cause your ex to not live in the misery you feel she deserves for kicking you out. You feel women who are divorced with kids just need to make due with what they have and what they can get from the government and not get any assistance from the father of the child.

You did not cheat the government, or your ex, you cheated your kid. Luckily some other man came along and took up your slack. The government was acting as an agent not for your ex, or the man who took your place as a father and as your ex's bed mate, it was acting on as the agent for your child. Your fight, however gallant you imagine it was was NOT against the State of Maryland, you were fighting YOUR own kid! You might as well have walked up and took the sneakers off his feet and returned them to the store for a refund.

You are beyond stupid.

[Chasey_Lane]

Originally Posted by Pete

You did not cheat the government, or your ex, you cheated your kid. Luckily some other man came along and took up your slack. The government was acting as an agent not for your ex, or the man who took your place as a father and as your ex's bed mate, it was acting on as the agent for your child. Your fight, however gallant you imagine it was was NOT against the State of Maryland, you were fighting YOUR own kid! You might as well have walked up and took the sneakers off his feet and returned them to the store for a refund.

EXCELLENT post, Pete!