Child Support Assurance Program - good or bad?

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally posted by mrs potts
Yes - but hopefully will require less public assistance and thus freeing additional funds for another person or family.

This is the goofiest argument ever.

I am going to cut your TANF $300 this month but don't worry we are going to boost your child support paid by your deadbeat by $300 from our funds, that way you will be on less public assistance.

[mrs potts]

Nope - just curious how the general public feels about this type of program.

[mrs potts]

mother-in-law research:

Don't judge all by your own situation.

IE: mother hops job to job to avoid paying.

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally posted by mrs potts
The state of New York has implemented this program on a large scale. Analysts studying the child support assurance program concluded that yearly administrative costs were $47 higher than traditional welfare cases, but it saved over $320 in cash assistance, food stamps and program costs recouped from child support obligors (http://www.cga.sta.ct.us/2001/rpt/pl...01-r-0767.html). The study also concluded that program participants generated more state and federal tax revenues.

Link wont open

But anyway so? The administrative costs are higher I assume per month because they have to pay attention instead of running the checks off a mimeograph machine.

Tax revenue HA, you know why? Because when you buy things with vouchers and stamps it is tax free. You substitute cash for the tax free assistance and you get a trickle.......miniscule.....tiny bit of increased tax revenue from the people who ill afford taxes to begin with.

[Nanny Pam (Premo)]

Originally posted by grandpa
Why should we, the taxpayers support these people. I didn't have any of the pleasure of producing these children, why should I have to support them. Sorry, the beeeding hearts have bled me dry. No one had to take care of my kids but me. Our society is turning into a (bum) handout , welfare nation.
Don't get me started!

What he said!

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally posted by mrs potts
mother-in-law research:

Don't judge all by your own situation.

IE: mother hops job to job to avoid paying.

I don't do mother-in-law research. I stated the mother in my case job hops to avoid collection through garnishment, that is fact not generalization.

I grew up in the deep south and have witnessed this "Uncle sugar" crap for years. Further I researched it on several occasions, the first time for myself and then for others. I have recalculated child support obligations and prepared the court forms necessary to go back to court for several people who needed it and done all the post-divorce litigation on my case. So I know how the gig works.

[dustin]

Absofriggin lutely not.

I was going to say,"well maybe if they tested it out on a select group of individuals first", but decided against it as these tests do jack squat and the people chosen arent always the best candidates plus factor in all kinds of errors and biasing done on the government side and what you get in the end is a screwed up peice of garbage.

People should take up their own slack.

What needs to be taken care of is the 3 month waiting period here in MD in the court system for the "nonchild support payers". At least I think that's what the issue is

[TWLs wife (Premo)]

After reading everything I'm not sure.

I say NO WAY!

They need to start garnishing more wages for child support and/or do a direct debit from accounts to collect the support.

No matter which way you look at this type of program, it is still a government handout.

[Toxick]

So we, the taxpayers, get the joys of paying child support, without having all the unprotected sex first.

Nosir - I don't like it.


Maybe what they should do is try actually enforcing the laws that are already in place. Put dead-beat parents in fcking jail where they belong.



Off the top of my head I can think of two people who should be in jail for YEARS of unpaid child support.

Scumbags both of them - and (SURPRISE) there has been NO intervention by social services or any other government agent - and NOW the government wants to throw money at the problem.




In all honesty, to make a long story short, I would benefit greatly from this ridiculous plan - and I still think it's a Very Bad Idea.