Child Support Problem.

JPC sr

James P. Cusick Sr.
:elaine: The issue with child support is that it is a type of social engineering where the political purpose is to stop families from breaking up by punishing the parents, and particularly degrading the separated parents.

It might appear okay to the custodial parent as they receive the praise and a little cash too and the separated parent is penalized to the custodials satisfaction, but in fact both the parents are degraded.

First the child support punishes the separated parent for parenting the child, the one blessed thing that the two parents did in having a child is the thing that the gov is attacking the parent for. Then the gov gives a small pittance in child support to pacify the custodial so that the custodials sell out their own children's other parent for petty cash, and then the custodials pretend that no one else knows of the dirty deed.

But everybody knows and our gov violates the whole family by those unjust child support laws.

The c/s system needs to be reformed, FYI. :patriot:
 

mv_princess

mv = margaritaville
We wouldn't have C/S problems with the parent that left would pay for the needs of that child.

Of course this will fall on deaf ears won't it JPC?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
JPC sr said:
The issue with child support is that it is a type of social engineering where the political purpose is to stop families from breaking up by punishing the parents, and particularly degrading the separated parents.
Actually, child support isn't a political issue at all. If two people have a child, they are both responsible for the well-being and upkeep of that child. The non-custodial pays a sum of money every month to do their part.

But you already know this, so why I just wasted 2 minutes explaining it again is beyond me.
 
E

(((echo)))

Guest
vraiblonde said:
But you already know this, so why I just wasted 2 minutes explaining it again is beyond me.
for the same reason we get about 2 treads a week wondering about unsigned juju :lol:
 

JPC sr

James P. Cusick Sr.
JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

vraiblonde said:
Actually, child support isn't a political issue at all. If two people have a child, they are both responsible for the well-being and upkeep of that child. The non-custodial pays a sum of money every month to do their part.

But you already know this, so why I just wasted 2 minutes explaining it again is beyond me.
:whistle: If it were not a political issue then it would only be between the two parents and the gov would not be involved.

The gov involved makes child support into a political issue, period. :jameo:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
JPC sr said:
If it were not a political issue then it would only be between the two parents and the gov would not be involved.
That's like saying a robbery is a political issue because the government gets involved instead of letting the property owner and the thief hash it out between themselves.

ARRRGH! There I go again! Wasting time explaining what you already know!! :banghead:
 

aps45819

24/7 Single Dad
JPC sr said:
Then the gov gives a small pittance in child support to pacify the custodial so that the custodials sell out their own children's other parent for petty cash, and then the custodials pretend that no one else knows of the dirty deed.
Please come back when you're sober
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
JPC sr said:
:elaine: The issue with child support is that it is a type of social engineering where the political purpose is to stop families from breaking up by punishing the parents, and particularly degrading the separated parents.
If it is your argument that child support is what would stop parents from breaking up, then that's probably a good thing. Our divorce laws are far too easy. Getting out of a marriage should be harder than getting out of a cell phone contract, not vice versa. And, if some small per centage of a non-custodial parent's income would stop them from leaving a family, or make them work harder at keeping the family, the family could probably be saved.
It might appear okay to the custodial parent as they receive the praise and a little cash too and the separated parent is penalized to the custodials satisfaction, but in fact both the parents are degraded.
See, this is a fundamental flaw in your perception.
First, the non-custodial parent is not even close to being penalized. It's not a fine. It's providing financial support to the child(ren), because they are not the one(s) who initiated the family split. Either the custodial or non-custodial parent (or, in most cases, a combination thereof) caused the family split, and both the custodial and non-custodial parents, being parents, are financially responsible for their child. The custodial parent handles that responsibility by providing day to day, and so should the non-custodial parent. Normally, this is done by figuring what the custodial parent earns, taking a percentage of that based upon how many children that parent is supporting, and then calling that figure a requirement. Now, if the non-custodial parent chooses to take some action that will change his/her income, the amount stays the same until the process is complete to change that amount based upon the change in status.
Second, the custodial parent is pretty much never satisfied, nor is their satisfaction taken into account. At no point, in no way, shape, or fashion is the custodial parent's wishes considered in the amount of support. It's based solely off of legally predetermined percentages of incomes, and the non-custodial parent's proven ability to earn. Some states take a balance of incomes and go through a long equation to figure out each parent's ability to provide, but even that convoluted process works out to a percentage of each parent's income. Each, custodial and non-custodial.
No one is degraded for providing financial support to their child. I'm not even sure where this perception could come from, let alone where it did.

First the child support punishes the separated parent for parenting the child, the one blessed thing that the two parents did in having a child is the thing that the gov is attacking the parent for. Then the gov gives a small pittance in child support to pacify the custodial so that the custodials sell out their own children's other parent for petty cash, and then the custodials pretend that no one else knows of the dirty deed.
Again, no one is being punished. They are providing money to a system which then turns around and gives that money to the child via the custodial parent. The one blessed thing that the two parents did in having a child needs to be looked after. Many parents find ways around the laws and don't provide a fair portion of their income to the child, so there need be laws to protect those children. Pacifying the custodial parent is never a consideration. The full amount of child support received is given to the child's custodian for that child's needs.
In what way is it possible to sell out the non-custodial parent? The only way a non-custodial parent can be punished is to become a non-supporting parent. Even then, it takes months to years of continuous non-support to be in any serious trouble with the laws. The laws are very forgiving to a non-supporting parent in terms of time to make restitution. Not very forgiving of the habitual non-supporter, though, for the obvious reason of that parent not taking responsibility for their child. I know of very, very few people in society who condone a non-supporting parent. This is one way society helps look out for the children.
But everybody knows and our gov violates the whole family by those unjust child support laws.

The c/s system needs to be reformed, FYI.
While I would agree that the taxing situation around child support is not always fair, the only way I would change the actual control of the child support system is to have the state pay the child support and get the money to do this from the non-custodial parent. As it stands right now, when a non-custodial parent chooses not to support their child, the child goes without that financial support and costs him/her many needs - and the state has little incentive to agressively pursue the non-supporting parent. Look at the arrearage amounts on the states rolls right now, and I'll bet the normal person would agree that it's a travesty how many non-supporting parents there are. This costs the average taxpayer in terms of medical costs that could be covered by a parent's insurance (but isn't being provided), WIC costs, welfare costs, increases in crime due to unsupervised children while custodial parents are working extra hours/jobs to make up the lack of support, etc. It's in the state's best interest to ensure that a non-custodial parent meets their responsibility to their child.
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
Pete said:
If you stop replying the attention hound will go away.
I hate to admit it, but this is my fault. I've been arguing with him in PMs for a couple of days, and he said he wanted it open to the public so they could read his wisdom on this. Everytime I get him close to understanding, we go off on some wild tangent. Nailing him down on this is like nailing jello to the wall.
 

FastCarsSpeed

Come Play at BigWoodys
JPC sr said:
:whistle: If it were not a political issue then it would only be between the two parents and the gov would not be involved.

The gov involved makes child support into a political issue, period. :jameo:

Your absolutely right I think. On two issues. C/S system does need to be fixed so that the offenders get penalized in some way shape or form for not providing for their children.

or better yet.

I think the custodial parent should be able to stop by the offending parents home once a week with a baseball bat and beat the ever living hell out of the offending parent because they WON'T pay child support. This is not an issue of not being able to pay because those situations are hard and I understand that. But its the parents that are unwilling to support their children that is just ignorant.

Now I am putting you on ignore because you sir are an Idiot.
 

Pete

Repete
This_person said:
I hate to admit it, but this is my fault. I've been arguing with him in PMs for a couple of days, and he said he wanted it open to the public so they could read his wisdom on this. Everytime I get him close to understanding, we go off on some wild tangent. Nailing him down on this is like nailing jello to the wall.

Well cut it out :smack:

You cannot nail him down, you cannot lead him down the path of understanding because he doesn't want to. As soon as he sees the trap he jumps off.

His rantings are illogical, unsupportable and laughable. He actually thinks the the preabmble to the Constitution authorized "Welfare" because the word appears. :roflmao:

" We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Pete said:
Well cut it out :smack:

You cannot nail him down, you cannot lead him down the path of understanding because he doesn't want to. As soon as he sees the trap he jumps off.

His rantings are illogical, unsupportable and laughable. He actually thinks the the preabmble to the Constitution authorized "Welfare" because the word appears. :roflmao:

" We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
:killingme
Sorry.

I asked him about the welfare thing here, and just couldn't believe it myself.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
This_person said:
I hate to admit it, but this is my fault.
No it's not. He did this same song and dance when he was running for House of Delegates last year.
 

jenbengen

Watch it
vraiblonde said:
That's like saying a robbery is a political issue because the government gets involved instead of letting the property owner and the thief hash it out between themselves.

ARRRGH! There I go again! Wasting time explaining what you already know!! :banghead:

:killingme I'll just let you say everything I want to say but won't waste time doing. :lmao: I'll stand behind you shaking my fist with ya! Hehehe.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
JPC sr said:
:whistle: If it were not a political issue then it would only be between the two parents and the gov would not be involved.

The gov involved makes child support into a political issue, period. :jameo:
Which branch of the government determines child support, and in favor of what party?? If I'm a republican do I pay more than if I was a democrat??

Child support is only a problem for people that apparently don't love their kids enough to be willing to take care of them. I have no problem paying support for my kids, and I pay well over what a court would order me to pay.

Yanno, if you kept your mouth shut about this, you wouldn't come across as such an idiot. I mean your other ideas are out there, and have no basis on reality or good research, but not nearly as stupid and distasteful as this one.
 
Top