Child Support Problem.

[Bustem' Down]

If you stop poking the idiot he will stop posting his bullchit

I've got nothing else to do for the next 4 1/2 hours. :shrug:

 

[JPC sr]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

Then tell me why you repeat things you've been shown, repeatedly, to be wrong about?

I would like to show posters how to start thinking for one self instead of believing political propaganda about child support.

If a parent does not pay a Court order then it has nothing to do with what kind of parent they be.

 

[JPC sr]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

You do that and you are asking for it big time. The order is the order and while she is happy with $500 today, what is to say in 3 years she gets mad about something and turns you in for arrears? Whamo you owe $36K more and the judge doesn't give a damn about any "agreement".

That is a big part of what I have been saying that the laws can ruin a parent for no crime and no wrong doing.

The law is arbitrary and capricious so the parents are not safe from attacks.

 

[JPC sr]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

They are not going without because WE pay for what YOU do not.

It is the job of the gov to provide for the welfare of the people. Oppression and tyranny is an abuse of that job.

Why do you choose to put your obligations on the backs of the worker? We have to pay more taxes to support the children of the dirtbags like you. You bred them, now FEED them.

The taxes are eaten up by the occupation of Iraq. The welfare budget is pennies compared to the Republican Party warmongerings.

You are such a disgusting Retard. .

This poster has such a vivid way with words.

 

[Pete]

That is a big part of what I have been saying that the laws can ruin a parent for no crime and no wrong doing.

The law is arbitrary and capricious so the parents are not safe from attacks.

Not paying your child support is a crime and wrong doing. Period, undebatable, not arguable, end of story.

 

[Bustem' Down]

That is a big part of what I have been saying that the laws can ruin a parent for no crime and no wrong doing.

The law is arbitrary and capricious so the parents are not safe from attacks.

Damn social engineering laws, keeping me from mudering people.

 

[Pete]

I would like to show posters how to start thinking for one self instead of believing political propaganda about child support.

If a parent does not pay a Court order then it has nothing to do with what kind of parent they be.

Sure it does, it means they are a horrible person, a horrible parent a blight on society, a boil on the ass of humanity and a criminal.

 

[Pete]

It is the job of the gov to provide for the welfare of the people. Oppression and tyranny is an abuse of that job.

WRONG! It is the responsibility of parents to provide for their children, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure they do it. Which much to your detriment they did, you jailbird. Who is the "government"? Where does the "government" get this money from to pay for kids who's biological parents are negligent?

You think the government just prints up these checks out of thin air? We pay for them, just like we pay for your sorry, miserable existence.

The taxes are eaten up by the occupation of Iraq. The welfare budget is pennies compared to the Republican Party warmongerings.

Iraq was not going on when you short changed your own child. It is not the governments responsibility to fund the necessities of your children.

This poster has such a vivid way with words.

So do you.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The welfare budget is pennies compared to the Republican Party warmongerings. :

Welfare is a scocial engineering law.

 

[JPC sr]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

Welfare is a scocial engineering law.

I suppose there is some truth in that but I do not believe it applies here.

Click here for a deffinition of Social Engineering.

So now to be more accurate I would say that child support is a vain attempt at social engineering the American families by attacking the parents.

To be more honest then one must try to be more accurate too.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I suppose there is some truth in that but I do not believe it applies here.

Click here for a deffinition of Social Engineering.

So now to be more accurate I would say that child support is a vain attempt at social engineering the American families by attacking the parents.

To be more honest then one must try to be more accurate too.

No, it's not social engineering, like a lein on your house, it's the government making you pony up for your responsibility.

 

[This_person]

You remind me of the Peanuts cartoon where Lucy asks Charlie Brown if he knows how many ozzes in a lib. There are so many things wrong with your thoughts that I don't know where to start.
First, can you show me where we have a "separation of Church and State"? It's a common liberal phrase that doesn't really exist in the Constitution. Next, you've gotten so far off of the subject, it's not really funny anymore. The choice is there to support one's child or not. You say no child goes without unless it's the custodial parent's fault. I ask you, why is it only the custodial parent's responsibility, based on your statement that no child goes without unless it's their fault, why is it only that parent's responsibility to provide for the child?

JPC, you never answered any of this.

 

[JPC sr]

The Conquest of 5th District.

First, can you show me where we have a "separation of Church and State"? It's a common liberal phrase that doesn't really exist in the Constitution.

It might be true that phrase was misused but I was more refering to the 1st amendment that the gov is not to establish a religion, and the USA gov has undermined that dictate by taking over the religious institution of marriage. The gov blesses the marriage today and it is as religiously worthless as the next writ of divorce that the same gov issues. The gov was not to be into the religion business but there it is. So in marriage and in parenting the gov is not separate from the religion.

You say no child goes without unless it's the custodial parent's fault. I ask you, why is it only the custodial parent's responsibility, based on your statement that no child goes without unless it's their fault, why is it only that parent's responsibility to provide for the child?

I say the child goes without ONLY if the custodial is abusing or neglecting the child(ren) because the custodial has ready access to fill any and all of the child's needs and so if the child does go without then it is the custodial's fault. That is what custody means is that the child is under the care of the custodial. That makes it the custodial's responsibility. If the custodial can not do the job then give the child to the separated parent, it is foolish to keep giving money to one that has already failed.

 

[This_person]

I say the child goes without ONLY if the custodial is abusing or neglecting the child(ren) because the custodial has ready access to fill any and all of the child's needs and so if the child does go without then it is the custodial's fault. That is what custody means is that the child is under the care of the custodial. That makes it the custodial's responsibility. If the custodial can not do the job then give the child to the separated parent, it is foolish to keep giving money to one that has already failed.

But, the child belongs to both parents. So, why would both parents not be responsible? Wouldn't it be true that if the child is going without, that is neglegent on both parents? And, since that's obviously true, wouldn't the parent providing NO financial support really be the MOST at fault?

Or, look at it this way; why not give the custodial parent the ability they deserve, by providing something towards the child? You refer to the custodial as failing if they can't solely provide for the child...wouldn't failure only happen if they had the legitimate help they deserve, ie, the financial assistance of the other party responsible for the child? I mean, by what you're saying, by saying that custody means that parent is responsible for the child, wouldn't that have to have the conclusion the other parent is out of the picture? No one wants that. Everyone wants both parents invovled. That means, emotionally, physically, emotionally, and FINANCIALLY.

 

[MMDad]

But, the child belongs to both parents. So, why would both parents not be responsible? Wouldn't it be true that if the child is going without, that is neglegent on both parents? And, since that's obviously true, wouldn't the parent providing NO financial support really be the MOST at fault?

Or, look at it this way; why not give the custodial parent the ability they deserve, by providing something towards the child? You refer to the custodial as failing if they can't solely provide for the child...wouldn't failure only happen if they had the legitimate help they deserve, ie, the financial assistance of the other party responsible for the child? I mean, by what you're saying, by saying that custody means that parent is responsible for the child, wouldn't that have to have the conclusion the other parent is out of the picture? No one wants that. Everyone wants both parents invovled. That means, emotionally, physically, emotionally, and FINANCIALLY.

Do you feel like you are talking to a wall yet? You may as well give up. You aren't saying anything he hasn't heard, he just refuses to accept the fact that he is wrong.

He is a case study in abnormal psychology. You will not fix him no matter how hard you try. The best thing is to ignore him.

 

[Pete]

If the custodial can not do the job then give the child to the separated parent, it is foolish to keep giving money to one that has already failed.

But you are on the dole too. :shrug:

 

[julz20684]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

If you are going to exclaim you are the above, please spell it correctly. TYVM

 

[czygvtwkr]

Interesting....make being a deadbeat dad legal.

 

[JPC sr]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

But, the child belongs to both parents. So, why would both parents not be responsible? Wouldn't it be true that if the child is going without, that is neglegent on both parents? And, since that's obviously true, wouldn't the parent providing NO financial support really be the MOST at fault?

No, what I am saying is that the custodial has full access to fill all the child's needs already without any child support for the extras. Since the custodial already has access to all the child needs then if the child goes without then it is only by abuse or neglect of the custodial. It simply has nothing to do with child support. If the separated parent was to fill the need then the separated parent would have to go to the custodial and physically provide for the child in need. So I am saying that the custodial already has the child's needs at hand and if the child is going without then the cudstodial is just failing to provide what the custodial already has. The child support is just extra cash for extras and child support never fills any real need but just luxuries.

Or, look at it this way; why not give the custodial parent the ability they deserve, by providing something towards the child? You refer to the custodial as failing if they can't solely provide for the child...wouldn't failure only happen if they had the legitimate help they deserve, ie, the financial assistance of the other party responsible for the child?

The custodial and the children already have ALL of the needs filled to overflowing. Giving them more is just piling on extras and if the custodial is not doing the job with ALL the needs filled then extras just pile on more neglect.

I mean, by what you're saying, by saying that custody means that parent is responsible for the child, wouldn't that have to have the conclusion the other parent is out of the picture? No one wants that. Everyone wants both parents invovled. That means, emotionally, physically, emotionally, and FINANCIALLY.

That is part of the trap and part of the real injustice of child support in that the separated parent is paying a ransom in child support or else they lose their own child to the system and to the custodial. It is like the children are kidnapped legally and the separated parent must pay the ransom or loose their children. Child support violates the family unit.

 

[JPC sr]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

If you are going to exclaim you are the above, please spell it correctly. TYVM

Some other poster called me that and spelled it that way so there it is.

I do put quote marks around that word as it is quoted.

If I could think of a new saying then I will replace it.