JPC sr said:
Aparently he wrote two things that seem contradictory and he is not yet posted to clear up the contradiction.
But I think you are exagerating his words as mine go right to the heart of the matter.
Many parents say they are paying the custodial or even say they are paying the children when the factual check goes through the gov thieves.
He probably only means he has never been pulled into Court for enforcement.
Either way he is still being cheated and you are grabbing for crumbs.
Actually, it's not contradictory at all. It's just called the English language.
See, he was doing this one thing. If he did this other thing, than someone else would do yet a third thing. But, since he was doing this one thing, the other someone didn't do the third thing.
Does that help?
Now, as to the kids not getting the help. Hmm, how to make you understand?
Let's say that you owe Jimmy Jr. money. Wait, no, that hits too close to honesty.
Let's say you want money for nothing from the government. No, that's too close, too.
Okay, let's say that you owe money for a car (since you like the car analogy so much). You don't have enough, but you want that car. So, the bank gives the dealership money on your behalf, and you pay the bank back. See how that works? No? Okay, see, the dealership here is like the child, a certain amount of money is needed. The state is like the bank, they have money to loan out. And, since there's no way I could think of anything like you, I just called you you. Since you don't want to pay for your owed money up front, the state pays for the person who owes, then the person who owes pays the state back. So, the dealership/child gets the money it needs to keep going, and the money (eventually) comes from the person who owes the money. Does that help you understand?