JP for Governor.

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

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 [so] 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.

I would want all three (3) of those, but it does seem that your #3 would not be necessary even though it does reflect the point of reform.

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.

I do see it as a human right and a God given right and thus a birth right, and the US Constitution does reflect that in saying that the Federal gov is to provide for the "welfare" of the population.

It was not put into the Bill of Rights but I say it was understood at that time and ever after.

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).

I say that is a wrong perspective which makes the interpretation incorrect.

It is no so much that people / citizens have a right to public assistance, because the "right" belongs to taxpayers that we have the right to help and assist our fellow citizens through the gov and with the tax dollars.

I see it like the Civil War in that the slaves did not have the right nor the power to defend themselves, so the right and the power belonged to the honest and moral citizens to do the right for the slaves.

So it is with poor people in the USA can not claim their own rights but the honest and moral citizens and taxpayers claim the right to provide for our fellow citizens in need.

Some people that do not receive public assistance are the ones trying to take it away, while other people that also do not receive public assistance demands that it is continued.

So the poor and the needy do not fight their own fight.

The same happens in child support in that the children are not in the discussions.

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.

The one right that counters that is in the 2nd Amendment in that we do have the right to fight back and to use violence against the gov when it does become tyrannical.

So you are correct that the gov can stop all welfare and the gov can stop all public assistance, but then the people have the option of doing as was done in the French revolution (1789) and cut off the King's head.

 

[bcp]

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.

The only thing overflowing in all of this is the waste coming from the toilet you call a mouth. (yes, yours)

Now if it was me, and I was looking to save the state some money, I would be more aggressive with the deadbeat bums, I would not lay off WORKERS, I would start by laying off welfare recipients. You first.
It makes no sense to put a greater burden on the state with child support, and at the same time laying off the productive when there are so many unproductive to take the hit first.

not one worker would be laid off until the last of the welfare mooches were gone.

 

[daisycreek]

It's quite clear that JPC has no reading comprehension, or he would have noted that child support laws are regulated by:

FEDERAL LAW

NOT MARYLAND LAW!!!!!!

 

[RoseRed]

It's quite clear that JPC has no reading comprehension, or he would have noted that child support laws are regulated by:

FEDERAL LAW

NOT MARYLAND LAW!!!!!!

He should hire on with the Obama administration as the new Child Support Czar.

 

[Bay_Kat]

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.

And how on earth do you know the child has everything he/she needs to overflowing? Again, JP, you are pathetic and I am counting down to the day you LOSE!

 

[Baja28]

It's quite clear that JPC has no reading comprehension, or he would have noted that child support laws are regulated by:

FEDERAL LAW

NOT MARYLAND LAW!!!!!!

So what you're saying is even if he were to be elected :snicker:, there's not a damn thing he could do.

 

[Bay_Kat]

So what you're saying is even if he were to be elected :snicker:, there's not a damn thing he could do.

Good one, I got my laugh for the night.

 

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

It's quite clear that JPC has no reading comprehension, or he would have noted that child support laws are regulated by:

FEDERAL LAW

NOT MARYLAND LAW!!!!!!

I do know about that and I do not like it either.

But Maryland like any State can still reject the Federal mandates and I would do that.

 

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

And how on earth do you know the child has everything he/she needs to overflowing? Again, JP, you are pathetic and I am counting down to the day you LOSE!

We can KNOW that because we know that every State in the USA has welfare and Social Services provided to every American citizen and so that means that every child has full access to every thing the child needs, and there are other places like Churches and Charity groups that give to families far more so and that means every child has every thing they each need to over flowing.

There is ONLY only one (1) way that any child in the entire USA goes without their needs filled and that is when the custodial is neglecting or abusing the child.

It has absolutely no regard nor baring on whether they receive child support or not.

 

[Bay_Kat]

We can KNOW that because we know that every State in the USA has welfare and Social Services provided to every American citizen and so that means that every child has full access to every thing the child needs, and there are other places like Churches and Charity groups that give to families far more so and that means every child has every thing they each need to over flowing.

There is ONLY only one (1) way that any child in the entire USA goes without their needs filled and that is when the custodial is neglecting or abusing the child.

It has absolutely no regard nor baring on whether they receive child support or not.

That is exactly the answer I would expect from a low life, non working bum. I'm sure the child is really proud knowing that they get everything from charities and state assistance and can tell their friends this versus saying "yes, both my parents provide for me." What a way to give a child some pride. You are truly worthless JP. So you are wrong, the child does not have everything he/she needs.

Not only do I hope you lose, which I am sure you will, but I honestly think you did not spend enough time in jail.

 

[bcp]

OK enough of the child support issue

lets look at another problem that is currently affecting Maryland citizens.
layoffs.

Would you agree that the state should lay off welfare recipients before touching the workers?

The logic behind this.
The worker is putting money into the state through his/her payroll taxes, property taxes, taxes on purchases etc...
The welfare recipient is taking from the state without providing any service to the community as a whole, in other words, he/she is not contributing to the welfare of the state.

The worker has more to lose. A house, maybe a car, education savings, retirement etc..
the welfare recipient has little to lose, public housing, and honestly, most of them don't care about school anyway, they have no retirement as they expect welfare to carry them to the grave.

Unexpected benefits might be that those cut from welfare might have to actually work for a living, and doing so would create a greater revenue for the state and business as a whole.

The broken expectation of living for free might cause some of the children to actually learn in school, creating a larger educated work force.

a larger workforce would be attractive to business that might be thinking about moving into the state, bringing once again, more revenue.

or, would you just continue paying the non workers while you laid off the workers creating a greater welfare state than we already have.

what would your choice be.

and child care is not in this equation.

 

[Bay_Kat]

OK enough of the child support issue

lets look at another problem that is currently affecting Maryland citizens.
layoffs.

Would you agree that the state should lay off welfare recipients before touching the workers?

The logic behind this.
The worker is putting money into the state through his/her payroll taxes, property taxes, taxes on purchases etc...
The welfare recipient is taking from the state without providing any service to the community as a whole, in other words, he/she is not contributing to the welfare of the state.

The worker has more to lose. A house, maybe a car, education savings, retirement etc..
the welfare recipient has little to lose, public housing, and honestly, most of them don't care about school anyway, they have no retirement as they expect welfare to carry them to the grave.

Unexpected benefits might be that those cut from welfare might have to actually work for a living, and doing so would create a greater revenue for the state and business as a whole.

The broken expectation of living for free might cause some of the children to actually learn in school, creating a larger educated work force.

a larger workforce would be attractive to business that might be thinking about moving into the state, bringing once again, more revenue.

or, would you just continue paying the non workers while you laid off the workers creating a greater welfare state than we already have.

what would your choice be.

and child care is not in this equation.

BCP for Governor!

 

[daisycreek]

I do know about that and I do not like it either.

But Maryland like any State can still reject the Federal mandates and I would do that.

Ummm No Maryland nor any other state may not reject the mandates. Per my long post to you, under the Social Security act- All states in order to receive TANF funds IE: welfare and medical assistance funds from the feds ... MUST have child support enforcement policy in place.

No child support..... No welfare funds

 

[Bay_Kat]

Ummm No Maryland nor any other state may not reject the mandates. Per my long post to you, under the Social Security act- All states in order to receive TANF funds IE: welfare and medical assistance funds from the feds ... MUST have child support enforcement policy in place.

No child support..... No welfare funds

Darn, he can't respond, the library is closed.

 

[daisycreek]

So what you're saying is even if he were to be elected :snicker:, there's not a damn thing he could do.

ummmmm YEP!

 

[bcp]

BCP for Governor!

Oh no
I dont suffer from any illness that would cause me to think I could run a state anywhere but into the ground.
I suggest we leave that position for people that are educated in such a way to allow for greatness,,, or at least allow them not to totally destroy.

besides, my idea of balancing a budget comes from balancing my own finances.
If you cant afford it, get rid of something. You don't fix increase your cash flow by borrowing more money.

 

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

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.

People & Payments: A Baseline Profile of Maryland’s Child Support Caseload

Lets go back to this website info given by "Daisy" and look at page #6 on that link above, second paragraph and it says this;

"The overarching principle of the child support program is that children are entitled to financial support from both parents."

And this is the point that it is NOT to support children but only to police parents, so it is a complete fraud.

And this coresponds to the words of "Tilted" below;

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.

The child support laws are designed to take from citizen parents money that they do not owe and give the c/s loot to others that do not need the money.

The child support is not being ordered based on any need to support children, but c/s is only being ordered as in "Daisy's" link says to control parents regardless of any need.

 

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

Lets go back to this website info given by "Daisy" and look at page #6 on that link above, second paragraph and it says this;

"The overarching principle of the child support program is that children are entitled to financial support from both parents."

And this is the point that it is NOT to support children but only to police parents, so it is a complete fraud.

And this coresponds to the words of "Tilted" below;

The child support laws are designed to take from citizen parents money that they do not owe and give the c/s loot to others that do not need the money.

The child support is not being ordered based on any need to support children, but c/s is only being ordered as in "Daisy's" link says to control parents regardless of any need.

And I forgot to say that all child support really does is to subsidize divorce and adultery.

It does not support children - it supports divorces and adultery.

 

[Bay_Kat]

And I forgot to say that all child support really does is to subsidize divorce and adultery.

It does not support children - it supports divorces and adultery.

You sound very bitter. I'm starting to understand.

 

[VoteJP]

Rock and roll.

I'm sure the child is really proud knowing that they get everything from charities and state assistance and can tell their friends this versus saying "yes, both my parents provide for me." What a way to give a child some pride. You are truly worthless JP. So you are wrong, the child does not have everything he/she needs.

I really see it as far FAR worse for the child to finally wake up to the sad reality that the custodial has been abusing the child's other parent through the brutal and unjust child support laws and doing it all through the child's name.

Much more damaging is for a child to discover that they have been fed off of the stolen money taken from their separated parent.

And of course the children would know the truth that the custodial only said the c/s was to help them (the children) while the c/s was mis-used and all the money really did was pay for the custodial to get the divorce and then the c/s paid for the custodial's adulteries, and the children really got nothing from the stolen money.

Children do grow up and lies never turn into truths no matter how hard the custodians preach the lies.