Bay_Kat
Tropical
Awesome questions, lets see how he answers, he may not, these are tricky questions for him
JP for Governor.
- Thread starter VoteJP
- Start date
Awesome questions, lets see how he answers, he may not, these are tricky questions for him
MMDad
Lem Putt
Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)
I hate to take Jimmy's side on anything, but you are way off base here.
Child support is not for paying her doctors, her rent, or her groceries. It is for the child's expenses ONLY.
Alimoney could cover those things if awarded, but there's no reason to believe it was.
He did not pay the expenses to raise his own child, and that surely caused hardship and stress for his ex as she was dying. But that does not make him liable for any expenses incurred because she got sick.
daisycreek said:
So both of those times brought the child support collectors after me but providing for the child had nothing to do with what was really going on
If parents really got away with not paying the thieves then there would not be much of a reason for me to reform it now.
The arrears can be written off in most case, except for the poorest of the poor parents where the State gov steals the child support and the State keeps the loot and it never goes to any children,
And where would the money come from to pay those doctors who cared for her while she was receiving medical assistance?? The majority of that money comes from the people who work and pay taxes, are they not allowed to recoup some of it???
If the mom is on public assistance the government is giving her money.. money that she should have been getting from you.. in the form of child support.
why do you feel that "the people who pay taxes" and who will be your possible voters should have to pay to support her?
Do you think that money to pay the doctors and pay peoples rents and groceries just falls outta the sky?
Don't get me wrong.. I have no issue with your ex wife getting help when she was ill... BUT SOMEONE HAS TO REPLACE THAT MONEY!
the rest of us have chipped in our share- so you needed to chip in your share as well!!!!!
I hate to take Jimmy's side on anything, but you are way off base here.
Child support is not for paying her doctors, her rent, or her groceries. It is for the child's expenses ONLY.
Alimoney could cover those things if awarded, but there's no reason to believe it was.
He did not pay the expenses to raise his own child, and that surely caused hardship and stress for his ex as she was dying. But that does not make him liable for any expenses incurred because she got sick.
daisycreek
*~ ~*
daisycreek
*~ ~*
I did not mean directly thru child support-
I was refering to the fact that when someone receives Temporary cash assistance or medical assistance they are required to open a child support case at that time. The purpose of this is two-fold.
if no child support is paid by the absent parent during the time the custodial parent is receiving public assistance........
and the child support arrears are building up ....
those arrears are then OWED to the state! A requirement of receiving cash assistance is to assign the child support arrears over to the state for the time that the parent receives assistance..
thus child support is the program that is bringing money in to help defray the monies spent by the state for those programs
My intent was to reply to this comment by JPC
The arrears can be written off in most case, except for the poorest of the poor parents where the State gov steals the child support and the State keeps the loot and it never goes to any children,
that if the mom was on public assistance the state didn't steal the child support money- as she was getting a check and/ or rent assistance, food stamps- The state gave her money they didn't steal it .
and when/if he ever paid- the arrears assigned to the state have to be paid off
the custodial parent can forgive arrears owed to them
Last edited:
bcp
In My Opinion
no you have it all wrong.
if the state pays the childs care during this period, then takes the money back from the worthless criminal deadbeat donor, the state is stealing the money.
the childs needs were already met and there is no reason to require assistance from the worthless sperm donor at all. its just not fair
daisycreek
*~ ~*
bcp
In My Opinion
Thinking on this I might be able to retire, still pay my bills, put my daughter through college and travel nonstop for a few maybe 20 years.
I just have to collect disability.
lets see, I broke my back in 92, the surgery left a touch of arthritis in my spine.
then, In 95 I cut off two fingers in a construction accident. they put them back on but one of them lost the tendon and wont straighten out anymore.
Then, in 04 I had a heart attack and had to get a stent put in.
06 was a ruptured disk that left me without nerves to my foot.
08 I had pneumonia that damaged my lungs and I have lost about 25% of my lung capacity because of it.
What a damn fool I am for going into work every day just to take care of my family.
If JPC can get benefits because his hands are bent from strokin, I just know all my bills can be paid without me working.
but then on the other hand, I expect that my injuries over the years could be why I have such a disgust when I hear about some POS milking the system like he his.
I want to thank you all now for paying my way.
I just have to collect disability.
lets see, I broke my back in 92, the surgery left a touch of arthritis in my spine.
then, In 95 I cut off two fingers in a construction accident. they put them back on but one of them lost the tendon and wont straighten out anymore.
Then, in 04 I had a heart attack and had to get a stent put in.
06 was a ruptured disk that left me without nerves to my foot.
08 I had pneumonia that damaged my lungs and I have lost about 25% of my lung capacity because of it.
What a damn fool I am for going into work every day just to take care of my family.
If JPC can get benefits because his hands are bent from strokin, I just know all my bills can be paid without me working.
but then on the other hand, I expect that my injuries over the years could be why I have such a disgust when I hear about some POS milking the system like he his.
I want to thank you all now for paying my way.
Bay_Kat
Tropical
Library still open? I had no idea.
VoteJP
J.P. Cusick
Rock and roll.
She was an American citizen of Maryland and she had her own right since she must have qualified for the public assistance and that is how our Social Services are designed to work.
So the gov is not really allowed to "recoup" it from me or from anyone else.
She did not get medical assistance based on having a child nor anything to do with child support.
As it is now the poorest of poor custodials that do get on public assistance do not receive the child support because the State keeps the loot.
It really is the same for all taxes for all gov programs in that it is to help and support and protect the US citizens as that is the purpose of taxes.
Ordering people to repay gov assistance would just force more people into bankruptcy and into poverty.
She was an American citizen of Maryland and she had her own right since she must have qualified for the public assistance and that is how our Social Services are designed to work.So the gov is not really allowed to "recoup" it from me or from anyone else.
She did not get medical assistance based on having a child nor anything to do with child support.
She qualifies for public assistance on her own merit as an American citizen, and the child support is not to be Mommy support.
As it is now the poorest of poor custodials that do get on public assistance do not receive the child support because the State keeps the loot.
It is the US gov jobs under the US Constitution to promote the general "welfare" of the population.
It really is the same for all taxes for all gov programs in that it is to help and support and protect the US citizens as that is the purpose of taxes.
It might not fall out of the sky, but such things are not to be paid by stealing money and calling it support for children.
No, the taxes or assistance does not get replaced or repaid as that is absurd.
Ordering people to repay gov assistance would just force more people into bankruptcy and into poverty.
Well I have always paid taxes and I still pay some taxes today.
VoteJP
J.P. Cusick
Rock and roll.
That is a point that I have repeated many times, that even the poorest of poor children have all of their needs filled completely and there is no justification for giving them extra.
The entire concept of child support is based in a fraud and it is a pack of lies, and the surest proof of that is in this reality that the State steals the child support cash away from the poorest of the poor children.
But going out and taking the money away from the separated parent and calling that as "child support" is both stealing and lying in simple and exact terms.
Child support is to support children and not to repay the State for welfare assistance, but the crooked system as it is now does this anyway.
That is a point that I have repeated many times, that even the poorest of poor children have all of their needs filled completely and there is no justification for giving them extra.The entire concept of child support is based in a fraud and it is a pack of lies, and the surest proof of that is in this reality that the State steals the child support cash away from the poorest of the poor children.
The money given in public assistance is not stolen money because the custodial has an American right to receive the public assistance.
But going out and taking the money away from the separated parent and calling that as "child support" is both stealing and lying in simple and exact terms.
Child support is to support children and not to repay the State for welfare assistance, but the crooked system as it is now does this anyway.
VoteJP
J.P. Cusick
Rock and roll.
I try not to elaborate on that one, but since you ask;
I was injured in the St. Mary's County Detention Center (1995 or 96?) when the guards beat me up and one of the 5 guards purposely came full weight down over my shoulders to purposely crush my backbone cartilages and it worked for him very well.
I learned later that the Correctional Officers train in ways of attacking and damaging the inmates in ways that can not be easily verified or seen, like my backbone being crushed left no scares and no bruise and they refused me any real medical attention afterward and I was just one of many inmates to be assaulted and crippled by the guards.
Most inmates do not get assaulted by the Correction Officers but over time it amounts to quite a few that do, and when they beat up one inmate then the terror tactic is seen and received by the hundred other inmates that know about it.
And I feel that I must confess that I do know of other inmates that have been brutalized far worse than I was by the guards.
And of course it was said to be my own fault as it is when the guards beat up any inmate that it is always recorded as the inmates' own fault every time.
I try not to elaborate on that one, but since you ask; I was injured in the St. Mary's County Detention Center (1995 or 96?) when the guards beat me up and one of the 5 guards purposely came full weight down over my shoulders to purposely crush my backbone cartilages and it worked for him very well.
I learned later that the Correctional Officers train in ways of attacking and damaging the inmates in ways that can not be easily verified or seen, like my backbone being crushed left no scares and no bruise and they refused me any real medical attention afterward and I was just one of many inmates to be assaulted and crippled by the guards.
Most inmates do not get assaulted by the Correction Officers but over time it amounts to quite a few that do, and when they beat up one inmate then the terror tactic is seen and received by the hundred other inmates that know about it.
And I feel that I must confess that I do know of other inmates that have been brutalized far worse than I was by the guards.
And of course it was said to be my own fault as it is when the guards beat up any inmate that it is always recorded as the inmates' own fault every time.
daisycreek
*~ ~*
Different policies apply in terms of how child
support collections are handled and if an annual collections fee applies, among other
things. For example, because Maryland presently does not ‘pass through’ any child
support in TANF cases, support payments made by noncustodial parents in current-
TANF cases are retained by the state to offset the cost of TANF assistance provided to
the family. If the amount of support collected is large enough to make the family
ineligible for TANF, of course, the family receives the support and their welfare case is
closed. In contrast, support collections that are received by the agency on behalf of
never-TANF cases are paid directly to the family
People & Payments: A Baseline Profile of Maryland’s Child Support Caseload
In 1950, when only a small minority of children were in female-headed families, the Federal Government took its first steps into the child support arena. Congress amended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) law by requiring State welfare agencies to notify law enforcement officials when benefits were being furnished to a child who had been abandoned by one of her parents. Presumably, local officials would then undertake to locate nonresident parents and make them pay child support. From 1950 to 1975, the Federal Government confined its child support efforts to these welfare children. With this exception, most Americans thought that child support establishment and collection was a domestic relations issue that should be dealt with at the State level by the courts.
The 1975 legislation (Public Law 93-647) added a new part D to title IV of the Social Security Act. This statute, as amended, authorizes Federal matching funds to be used for enforcing support obligations by locating nonresident parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support awards, and collecting child support payments. Since 1981, child support agencies have also been permitted to collect spousal support on behalf of custodial parents, and in 1984 they were required to petition for medical support as part of most child support orders.
Basic responsibility for administering the program is left to States, but the Federal Government plays a major role in: dictating the major design features of State programs; funding, monitoring and evaluating State programs; providing technical assistance; and giving assistance to States in locating absent parents and obtaining support payments
In 1996, Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, abolished AFDC and related programs and replaced them with a block grant program of TANF. Under the new law, each State must operate a CSE Program meeting Federal requirements in order to be eligible for TANF funds. In addition to abolishing AFDC, Public Law 104-193 made about 50 changes to the CSE Program, many of them major. These changes include requiring States to increase the percentage of fathers identified, establishing an integrated, automated network linking all States to information about the location and assets of parents, requiring States to implement more enforcement techniques, and revising the rules governing the distribution of past due (arrearage) child support payments to former recipients of public assistance.
The Social Security Act requires every State operating a TANF Program to conduct a Child Support Enforcement Program. Federal law requires applicants for, and recipients of, TANF to assign their support rights to the State in order to receive benefits. In addition, each applicant or recipient must cooperate with the State to establish the paternity of a child born outside marriage and to obtain child support payments.
if the relative with whom a child is living still refuses to cooperate, then the State must reduce the family's TANF benefit by at least 25 percent and may remove the family from the TANF Program. (Federal law also stipulates that no TANF funds may be used for a family that includes a person who has not assigned child support rights to the State.)
States are required to use several enforcement tools. They must use the IRS tax refund offset procedure for welfare and nonwelfare families, and they must also determine periodically whether any individuals receiving unemployment compensation owe child support. The State Employment Security Agency (part of the Federal-State Unemployment Insurance System), is required to withhold unemployment benefits, and to pay the child support agency any outstanding child support obligations established by an agreement with the individual or through legal processes.
Other enforcement techniques States must use include:
1. Imposing liens against real and personal property for amounts of overdue support;
2. Withholding State tax refunds payable to a parent who is delinquent in support payments;
3. Reporting the amount of overdue support to a consumer credit bureau upon request;
4. Requiring individuals who have demonstrated a pattern of delinquent payments to post a bond or give some other guarantee to secure payment of overdue support;
5. Establishing expedited processes within the State judicial system or under administrative processes for obtaining and enforcing child support orders and determining paternity.
These expedited procedures include giving States authority to secure assets to satisfy payment of past-due support by seizing or attaching unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, judgments, settlements, lotteries, asset held in financial institutions, and public and private retirement funds;
6. Withholding, suspending, or restricting the use of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational and sporting licenses of noncustodial parents who owe past-due support;
7. Denying passports to persons owing more than $5,000 in past-due support;
8. Requiring unemployed noncustodial parents who owe child support to a child receiving TANF benefits to participate in appropriate work activities;
9. Performing quarterly data matches with financial institutions; and
10. Voiding of fraudulent transfers of assets to avoid payment of child support.
Foster care agencies are required to take steps, where appropriate, to secure an assignment to the State of any rights to support on behalf of a child receiving foster care maintenance payments under title IV-E of the Social Security Act.
State child support agencies are also required to petition to include medical support as part of any child support order whenever health care coverage is available to the noncustodial parent at a reasonable cost. And, if a family loses TANF eligibility as the result of increased collection of support payments, the State must continue to provide Medicaid benefits for 4 calendar months beginning with the month of ineligibility. In addition, States must provide services to families covered by Medicaid who are referred to the State IV-D agency from the State Medicaid agency.
States also have the option of charging a late payment fee equal to between 3 and 6 percent of the amount of overdue support. Late payment fees may be charged to noncustodial parents and are to be collected only after the full amount of the support has been paid to the child.
Finally, each State must comply with any other requirements and standards that the Secretary determines to be necessary to the establishment of an effective child support program.
support collections are handled and if an annual collections fee applies, among other
things. For example, because Maryland presently does not ‘pass through’ any child
support in TANF cases, support payments made by noncustodial parents in current-
TANF cases are retained by the state to offset the cost of TANF assistance provided to
the family. If the amount of support collected is large enough to make the family
ineligible for TANF, of course, the family receives the support and their welfare case is
closed. In contrast, support collections that are received by the agency on behalf of
never-TANF cases are paid directly to the family
People & Payments: A Baseline Profile of Maryland’s Child Support Caseload
In 1950, when only a small minority of children were in female-headed families, the Federal Government took its first steps into the child support arena. Congress amended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) law by requiring State welfare agencies to notify law enforcement officials when benefits were being furnished to a child who had been abandoned by one of her parents. Presumably, local officials would then undertake to locate nonresident parents and make them pay child support. From 1950 to 1975, the Federal Government confined its child support efforts to these welfare children. With this exception, most Americans thought that child support establishment and collection was a domestic relations issue that should be dealt with at the State level by the courts.
The 1975 legislation (Public Law 93-647) added a new part D to title IV of the Social Security Act. This statute, as amended, authorizes Federal matching funds to be used for enforcing support obligations by locating nonresident parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support awards, and collecting child support payments. Since 1981, child support agencies have also been permitted to collect spousal support on behalf of custodial parents, and in 1984 they were required to petition for medical support as part of most child support orders.
Basic responsibility for administering the program is left to States, but the Federal Government plays a major role in: dictating the major design features of State programs; funding, monitoring and evaluating State programs; providing technical assistance; and giving assistance to States in locating absent parents and obtaining support payments
In 1996, Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, abolished AFDC and related programs and replaced them with a block grant program of TANF. Under the new law, each State must operate a CSE Program meeting Federal requirements in order to be eligible for TANF funds. In addition to abolishing AFDC, Public Law 104-193 made about 50 changes to the CSE Program, many of them major. These changes include requiring States to increase the percentage of fathers identified, establishing an integrated, automated network linking all States to information about the location and assets of parents, requiring States to implement more enforcement techniques, and revising the rules governing the distribution of past due (arrearage) child support payments to former recipients of public assistance.
The Social Security Act requires every State operating a TANF Program to conduct a Child Support Enforcement Program. Federal law requires applicants for, and recipients of, TANF to assign their support rights to the State in order to receive benefits. In addition, each applicant or recipient must cooperate with the State to establish the paternity of a child born outside marriage and to obtain child support payments.
if the relative with whom a child is living still refuses to cooperate, then the State must reduce the family's TANF benefit by at least 25 percent and may remove the family from the TANF Program. (Federal law also stipulates that no TANF funds may be used for a family that includes a person who has not assigned child support rights to the State.)
States are required to use several enforcement tools. They must use the IRS tax refund offset procedure for welfare and nonwelfare families, and they must also determine periodically whether any individuals receiving unemployment compensation owe child support. The State Employment Security Agency (part of the Federal-State Unemployment Insurance System), is required to withhold unemployment benefits, and to pay the child support agency any outstanding child support obligations established by an agreement with the individual or through legal processes.
Other enforcement techniques States must use include:
1. Imposing liens against real and personal property for amounts of overdue support;
2. Withholding State tax refunds payable to a parent who is delinquent in support payments;
3. Reporting the amount of overdue support to a consumer credit bureau upon request;
4. Requiring individuals who have demonstrated a pattern of delinquent payments to post a bond or give some other guarantee to secure payment of overdue support;
5. Establishing expedited processes within the State judicial system or under administrative processes for obtaining and enforcing child support orders and determining paternity.
These expedited procedures include giving States authority to secure assets to satisfy payment of past-due support by seizing or attaching unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, judgments, settlements, lotteries, asset held in financial institutions, and public and private retirement funds;
6. Withholding, suspending, or restricting the use of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational and sporting licenses of noncustodial parents who owe past-due support;
7. Denying passports to persons owing more than $5,000 in past-due support;
8. Requiring unemployed noncustodial parents who owe child support to a child receiving TANF benefits to participate in appropriate work activities;
9. Performing quarterly data matches with financial institutions; and
10. Voiding of fraudulent transfers of assets to avoid payment of child support.
Foster care agencies are required to take steps, where appropriate, to secure an assignment to the State of any rights to support on behalf of a child receiving foster care maintenance payments under title IV-E of the Social Security Act.
State child support agencies are also required to petition to include medical support as part of any child support order whenever health care coverage is available to the noncustodial parent at a reasonable cost. And, if a family loses TANF eligibility as the result of increased collection of support payments, the State must continue to provide Medicaid benefits for 4 calendar months beginning with the month of ineligibility. In addition, States must provide services to families covered by Medicaid who are referred to the State IV-D agency from the State Medicaid agency.
States also have the option of charging a late payment fee equal to between 3 and 6 percent of the amount of overdue support. Late payment fees may be charged to noncustodial parents and are to be collected only after the full amount of the support has been paid to the child.
Finally, each State must comply with any other requirements and standards that the Secretary determines to be necessary to the establishment of an effective child support program.
bcp
In My Opinion
What you and those like you fail to understand is that welfare in its own is the fraud in this case.
The word "welfare" in the constitution did not mean taking money from one person and giving it to another. I think it was Roosevle that created the welfare system as it is today.
Based on that, and considering your theory on child support being theft, I would expect you to see that public assistance is theft.
Its something I dont want to support in 90% of the cases (yours being one of them) but I have no option. Therefore, public assistance, is theft, and by extention you are stealing money from me.
You might really want to explore a bit of constitutional history before you make the determination that the word "welfare" had an original meaning of free money to the poor.
Oh, and as far as that goes, child support in your opinion is just as constitutional as public assistance, so again, based on your own words, you should have given the support freely because it was your constitutional obligation.
Tilted
..
JP, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posts, though you still didn't definitively answer one of my inquiries. Regarding the child support system, which one of these three things would you want to do if you were governor? If none of them is a fair description, then of course, feel free to provide one.
(1) Change Maryland law saw that no one could be jailed for failure to pay court ordered child support.
(2) Do (1) and change Maryland law by removing all of it that relates to child support (and enforcement), so that there was no state run mechanism to help custodial parents get awarded child support and collect it, and no statutory guidelines for determining child support in individual cases.
(3) Do (2) and make a special provision in Maryland law that specifically grants non-custodial parents immunity from civil liability for matters relating to the expenses associated with raising/supporting their children.
Okay, I don't think I can let this pass without comment. They have an American right to receive public assistance? If by that you simply mean that there are specific laws that say they are to receive it, then I guess that's correct. But, if you mean 'right' in any broader sense, then I think that statement is preposterous - even treacherous. It reveals the mindset which has come to pervade modern society, which misconstrues the notion of political rights, and which will be increasingly problematic for society and the prosperity thereof.
Here's the problem, there's a trend in society whereby people have a habit of mixing apples and oranges, and talking about them both under the umbrella of 'rights', and in ways that infer (or assume) comparability. Traditionally, or at least Constitutionally, most rights refer to things that the government is not allowed to do to you (and to some extent, things that it can't allow others to do to you), not things that the government has to give you. You have the 'right' to not have certain things done to you, not the 'right' to have certain things done for you. Individual rights, as relates to governments, are prohibitions placed on those governments, not obligations placed on them (except, as I said, to the extent that they need to 'prohibit' people from doing things to other people).
You don't have a political right to have people give you things, you have a political right to have them not take things away from you. One might argue that voting is a 'right' to have something given to you - and that's a reasonable argument. However, I see the state as something that arises from the very political franchise that comes to be embodied in, and represented by, the vote - so in its essence, it isn't something the government gives you, but something that we have, the collective of which creates and is the government.
(1) Change Maryland law saw that no one could be jailed for failure to pay court ordered child support.
(2) Do (1) and change Maryland law by removing all of it that relates to child support (and enforcement), so that there was no state run mechanism to help custodial parents get awarded child support and collect it, and no statutory guidelines for determining child support in individual cases.
(3) Do (2) and make a special provision in Maryland law that specifically grants non-custodial parents immunity from civil liability for matters relating to the expenses associated with raising/supporting their children.
Okay, I don't think I can let this pass without comment. They have an American right to receive public assistance? If by that you simply mean that there are specific laws that say they are to receive it, then I guess that's correct. But, if you mean 'right' in any broader sense, then I think that statement is preposterous - even treacherous. It reveals the mindset which has come to pervade modern society, which misconstrues the notion of political rights, and which will be increasingly problematic for society and the prosperity thereof.
Here's the problem, there's a trend in society whereby people have a habit of mixing apples and oranges, and talking about them both under the umbrella of 'rights', and in ways that infer (or assume) comparability. Traditionally, or at least Constitutionally, most rights refer to things that the government is not allowed to do to you (and to some extent, things that it can't allow others to do to you), not things that the government has to give you. You have the 'right' to not have certain things done to you, not the 'right' to have certain things done for you. Individual rights, as relates to governments, are prohibitions placed on those governments, not obligations placed on them (except, as I said, to the extent that they need to 'prohibit' people from doing things to other people).
You don't have a political right to have people give you things, you have a political right to have them not take things away from you. One might argue that voting is a 'right' to have something given to you - and that's a reasonable argument. However, I see the state as something that arises from the very political franchise that comes to be embodied in, and represented by, the vote - so in its essence, it isn't something the government gives you, but something that we have, the collective of which creates and is the government.
VoteJP
J.P. Cusick
Rock and roll.
I like to point out that all of that above states NOTHING nothing at all to do with children in need or needy children, as the entire law is totally based on parenting police and attacking parents with absolutely no regard at all for the children, and no regard for any real need of any child.
And foremost in that parenting police set of rules is that the poorest of the poor families on welfare do have the child support taken by the State and put into the State treasury because there is the distinct position that all the children already have all of their needs filled completely.
These rules are not for supporting children but only for policing parents.
So it is all a lie and a fraud.
I like to point out that all of that above states NOTHING nothing at all to do with children in need or needy children, as the entire law is totally based on parenting police and attacking parents with absolutely no regard at all for the children, and no regard for any real need of any child.And foremost in that parenting police set of rules is that the poorest of the poor families on welfare do have the child support taken by the State and put into the State treasury because there is the distinct position that all the children already have all of their needs filled completely.
These rules are not for supporting children but only for policing parents.
So it is all a lie and a fraud.
VoteJP
J.P. Cusick
Rock and roll.
You are just playing games again bcp.
There is no comparison between the richest Country in the world using a small (relatively small) amount of the overall taxes to give public assistance to the poorest members of our society, then compare that to individual parents being pillaged and slandered to pay child support when the children already have everything the child needs to over flowing.
You might want to win your argument but there is no comparison in that.
You are just playing games again bcp.There is no comparison between the richest Country in the world using a small (relatively small) amount of the overall taxes to give public assistance to the poorest members of our society, then compare that to individual parents being pillaged and slandered to pay child support when the children already have everything the child needs to over flowing.
You might want to win your argument but there is no comparison in that.