The Child Support injustice.

[bcp]

My point was and remain that the Child Support paid does NOT support the children.

And the children already have everything they need to overflowing.

If you or anyone is concerned about tax money then stealing that $400 or even steal $2,000 is nothing because when one (just 1 or each 1) of those dead broke parents get put into jail then the taxes pay over $20,000 per year TRYING to collect 5,000-12,000 which never gets paid.

And the taxes pay big to have Child Support collection workers and their offices and perks and going to Court and paying the Judges and etc., etc.

We pay a fortune to forcibly collect the Child Support that never even supports the children.


.

and even with these laws we have how many not making the payments?

I wonder, how many more would we have to support if there were no law enforcing responsibility for your children.

I would rather pay jail costs for 1 and save the payments on 10, than drop the laws and pay for all of the children abandoned by their sperm donars.

 

[bcp]

and by the way think of this.
that cost to house a prisoner is not really as high as some like to make it out to be.

even if that jail cell is sitting empty, we still pay to heat and cool it, we pay to maintain it, we pay to maintain the building it sets in, we still pay a guard to walk past that empty cell. And in the case of the "dead broke" we still pay for medical and housing. Look at you, how much do you take from the system because of your fake disability? I bet that putting you in jail would actually be an overall savings to the taxpayer.
We still pay the judge to sit in his courtroom even if there is no case to be heard.
so, the actual cost added per prisoner is not really that great. not having him there might save us 10k per year.

 

[VoteJP]

Blog-o-sphere

So, do you really think someone with a grand total of <$2000 net worth has "everything they need to overflowing"? Are you really that unaware of what things cost since you were never involved with raising a child?

No, it is a matter of knowing what welfare provides.

In that welfare provides to those poorest of poor families their housing and food stamps and full medical coverage and much more - plus the TCA, so the welfare does provide everything the family needs to overflowing, and then taking the Child Support by the State does not harm those families because they do not need the Child Support as they already have all of their needs filled.

Welfare provides everything so then the poorest need nothing including they do not need the Child Support when it does get paid.

Every other family NOT on welfare have over top of the welfare guidelines so they have the same equivalence of needs filled but then they get their Child Support payments as extra money and not out of being needed.

My point remains that the claim that the "Child Support" actually supports-the-child is thus a total fraud.


.

 

[VoteJP]

Blog-o-sphere

And your point continues to be invalidated.

The Child Support is not withheld to pay back all of welfare programs. Only TCA. Thus, if they have more than $2,000 net worth (including those welfare monies), they are not eligible for TCA, thus the child support would not be withheld to pay back the TCA.

You equate things as if it is a "point spread" in some "sports game" and it does not equate like that.

That equation means that the State guidelines determine that amount as the basic amount to fill the needs of the family and thereafter or families above that amount get the Child Support as extra money as in luxuries or "over and above" the family need.

Therefore the Child Support is NOT needed and it is never needed because beyond or above this State criteria then any and all children already have all of their needs filled.

So = the claim that the "Child Support" actually supports-the-child is thus a total fraud.


.

 

[VoteJP]

Blog-o-sphere

So, you finally agree that the state does not keep virtually anybody's child support? Good!

I have said it a hundred times and I am happy to say it here again;

The State steals the Child Support payments from the poorest of the poor custodial parents and their children on welfare.

The State does NOT steal the c/s from the richer parents but ONLY from the poorest of the poor.

However, you act as though the bare minimum is more than sufficient. It's not, and it's that simple. If the child can have more, and the parents are not both equally supporting the child, then the parent not providing directly for the child is the one at fault.

Having more than the minimum means the child has a better life. That means the child support actually supports the child's welfare.

And this makes you a thief, and you are a supporter of thievery.

Not stealing for need, but stealing for greed.

"Thou shalt not steal" - which is not a State law and not a Federal law.


.

 

[bcp]

So, you finally agree that the state does not keep virtually anybody's child support? Good!

However, you act as though the bare minimum is more than sufficient. It's not, and it's that simple. If the child can have more, and the parents are not both equally supporting the child, then the parent not providing directly for the child is the one at fault.

Having more than the minimum means the child has a better life. That means the child support actually supports the child's welfare.

no you have it wrong.
he expects others to pay for the families instead of those responsible for that family.

typical liberal welfare leach attitude.

I so badly would love to take him down to Carolina with me and have him explain this to some of my friends over a beer.

 

[blondie4512]

So let me get this straight....

Because I make enough money to provide food and a roof over mine and my childs head, means I shouldn't recieve child support? For the child that it took me plus one other to make? But because I am the responsible one we don't deserve more?

I have a fairly decent job, making more than most my age. I have 1 child who has more needs than just food and a home.. She needs clothing (I'm not materialistic by any means I know in 3 months she's gonna grow out of anything I buy her so I don't go above and beyond on cloths) but there is extra circular activities, for which in order to recieve "scholarships" I don't make the pay grade. I know this isn't a need but why does she have to do without, I will do without before my kid does. But can't he ever go without? Why does he get to drive the expedition? When he makes far less money than I do and has achieved nothing in his life time, (but making a beautiful kid) Why does the court order him to pay so much a month and let him get buy with paying a few hundred a few months only to keep himself out of jail. Why if I don't feed my kid, clothe her, bath her and take care of her like any responsible parent does would I get charged with neglect and yet he doesn't? Just because the woman give birth to the child doesn't mean she bares all responsibility for that child.

Working my way from the bottom I think once I hit about 8-9 bucks an hour I lost all gov't assistance which is know way enough to raise a kid on in this area...

 

[VoteJP]

Blog-o-sphere

So let me get this straight....

Because I make enough money to provide food and a roof over mine and my childs head, means I shouldn't receive child support? For the child that it took me plus one other to make? But because I am the responsible one we don't deserve more?

I have a fairly decent job, making more than most my age. I have 1 child who has more needs than just food and a home.. She needs clothing (I'm not materialistic by any means I know in 3 months she's gonna grow out of anything I buy her so I don't go above and beyond on cloths) but there is extra circular activities, for which in order to receive "scholarships" I don't make the pay grade. I know this isn't a need but why does she have to do without, I will do without before my kid does. But can't he ever go without? Why does he get to drive the expedition? When he makes far less money than I do and has achieved nothing in his life time, (but making a beautiful kid) Why does the court order him to pay so much a month and let him get buy with paying a few hundred a few months only to keep himself out of jail. Why if I don't feed my kid, clothe her, bath her and take care of her like any responsible parent does would I get charged with neglect and yet he doesn't? Just because the woman give birth to the child doesn't mean she bares all responsibility for that child.

Working my way from the bottom I think once I hit about 8-9 bucks an hour I lost all gov't assistance which is know way enough to raise a kid on in this area...

Hi, and welcome to this discussion.

Since you have the child then you have the best part as you have the prize, the father is missing out and he is the one being alienated.

Blame it on him is fine, but you still won the prize and you are blessed to have your daughter and it is wrong to view her as a burden or as a liability because she is a blessing from God.

And she needs her father even if you do not want him around, but if you are going to demand his money then it is up to you to see to it that he and his daughter have a healthy and productive relationship too.

What was necessary was for you to marry (or live with) the child's Dad, and that is not just you as that is how human parents are to raise their children is together as in a marriage, and the dysfunction you describe is because you are separated from the Dad instead of living with him.

Now if you do not want anything to do with the Dad then you have effectively stolen his daughter from him and the child will be harmed by that because children need NEED both of their parents.

They need the parent and not the parent's money, and the money does go along with the parent, as if he sees his daughter then he will freely provide for her because that is what all parents do without any force at all.

You do not need the law to go steal the Dad's money as all you have to do is invite him over to see his daughter and let human nature do the rest.

If you want your daughter to grow up strong and brave then you have to lead the way, and that means through her Dad and not the law.


.

 

[Highlander]

Hi, and welcome to this discussion.

Since you have the child then you have the best part as you have the prize, the father is missing out and he is the one being alienated.

Blame it on him is fine, but you still won the prize and you are blessed to have your daughter and it is wrong to view her as a burden or as a liability because she is a blessing from God.

And she needs her father even if you do not want him around, but if you are going to demand his money then it is up to you to see to it that he and his daughter have a healthy and productive relationship too.

What was necessary was for you to marry (or live with) the child's Dad, and that is not just you as that is how human parents are to raise their children is together as in a marriage, and the dysfunction you describe is because you are separated from the Dad instead of living with him.

Now if you do not want anything to do with the Dad then you have effectively stolen his daughter from him and the child will be harmed by that because children need NEED both of their parents.

They need the parent and not the parent's money, and the money does go along with the parent, as if he sees his daughter then he will freely provide for her because that is what all parents do without any force at all.

You do not need the law to go steal the Dad's money as all you have to do is invite him over to see his daughter and let human nature do the rest.

If you want your daughter to grow up strong and brave then you have to lead the way, and that means through her Dad and not the law.


.

I knew I shouldn't have read cuSICKs post. I think I just threw up in my mouth.

 

[VoteJP]

Blog-o-sphere

I knew I shouldn't have read cuSICKs post. I think I just threw up in my mouth.

I say that is very fitting for you.

As the Bible says; A dog swallows its own vomit.


.

 

[hvp05]

So let me get this straight....

I can already tell you, you have it straight. He's the crackpot. Every bit of proof posed to counter him bounces off and he rolls right along believing his delusions. He conjures his own word definitions and shelters himself in his own little bubble. It can be entertaining in a way, but the hope of actually gaining ground on changing his mind is a lost cause.

Browse through his couple other threads here in Elections; it won't take you long to realize how dysfunctional he is.

 

[bcp]

I say that is very fitting for you.

As the Bible says; A dog swallows its own vomit.


.

Doesnt the Bible also say that you reap what you sow? oh little broken convict man living out of the taxpayers dollar?

 

[blondie4512]

Hi, and welcome to this discussion.

Since you have the child then you have the best part as you have the prize, the father is missing out and he is the one being alienated.

he is not being alienated, he has choosen on his own free will to alienate himself. I would want nothing more than my daughter to have a nice healthy relationship with her father.

Blame it on him is fine, but you still won the prize and you are blessed to have your daughter and it is wrong to view her as a burden or as a liability because she is a blessing from God.

I have never once viewed my daughter as a burden or a liability I have taken full responsibility of her since the day she was born and will continue to do so for the rest of her life.

And she needs her father even if you do not want him around, but if you are going to demand his money then it is up to you to see to it that he and his daughter have a healthy and productive relationship too.

I will not force my daughter on her father. He knows where she is and how to see her if he doesn't make and attempt thats on him. Like I said it would be great if he did, then I wouldn't have to answer the question again, of, Why doesn't my daddy love me?

What was necessary was for you to marry (or live with) the child's Dad, and that is not just you as that is how human parents are to raise their children is together as in a marriage, and the dysfunction you describe is because you are separated from the Dad instead of living with him.

I was very young when I got pregnant and it didn't take me long to realize that the man who impregnated me would never be the one for me, he was/is a liar and a manipulater and sorry but I nor anyone deserves to be treated that way. Granted I should of been aware of this when we started dating but like I said I was young, but I still wouldn't take it back for anything in the world I love my daughter and couldn't begin to imagine my life without her

Now if you do not want anything to do with the Dad then you have effectively stolen his daughter from him and the child will be harmed by that because children need NEED both of their parents.

Again thats on him

They need the parent and not the parent's money, and the money does go along with the parent, as if he sees his daughter then he will freely provide for her because that is what all parents do without any force at all.

Are you on drugs?

You do not need the law to go steal the Dad's money as all you have to do is invite him over to see his daughter and let human nature do the rest.

He knows where we live

If you want your daughter to grow up strong and brave then you have to lead the way, and that means through her Dad and not the law.

My daugher is very strong, for the simple fact that she doesn't need her dad. At this point she needs her mother to take care of her and provide for her as I do. But having a very strong, independent mother, she will no doubt grow up to be the same. I have not thought her to be a man hater but definitely do teach her that the only person she can depend/count on in her life is herself. That will get her where she needs to be.

.

You are obviously pretty clueless. And will never get it. I'm guessing you probably got a few kids yourself you don't pay child support for. And this is your wierd way of justifying yourself...

 

[Highlander]

You are obviously pretty clueless. And will never get it. I'm guessing you probably got a few kids yourself you don't pay child support for. And this is your wierd way of justifying yourself...

You figured cuSICK out quickly. Yes, he is clueless. Fortunately, he only had one child.

 

[blondie4512]

He has one that he admittedly deserted "to let them figure it out for themselves". Here, let me let him explain it, in an old screen name of his:Since then, he wanted to come back to this God-forsaken area, but knew he'd have to show some responsibility to his child if he did. So, instead, he vandalized some government property so he could be thrown in jail and two things would happen - he wouldn't have to try and figure out a way to get welfare anymore because he'd be clothed, fed, and housed by the taxpayers directly, and his child support arrears would stop going up because of his change of status. So, he willingly chose, through his actions, to continue to not be there for his child physically, emotionally, and fiscally.

Then, when his ex-wife died, his son's step-dad told the system not to worry about the years of arrears. Like a true man, the step-dad assumed the responsibilities Jimmy forsake to Jimmy's own namesake.

The son then grew up to be a POS like his father. However, when push came to shove, the son decided to grow a pair and pay his support to his child. Something Jimmy publicly berates him for.

Yet he preaches all this about alienating the father bull$hit?

Well he sounds like a winner!

 

[VoteJP]

Blog-o-sphere

So long as you keep the law between your children and their Dad then your family will never function properly, and there will never be peace.

The custodial has no business hiding behind the law.


.

 

[VoteJP]

Blog-o-sphere

My daughter is very strong, for the simple fact that she doesn't need her dad. At this point she needs her mother to take care of her and provide for her as I do. But having a very strong, independent mother, she will no doubt grow up to be the same. I have not thought her to be a man hater but definitely do teach her that the only person she can depend/count on in her life is herself. That will get her where she needs to be.

She needs her real Dad whether you like that or not, and the alienation will hurt her in many ways.

Having custody means providing all the child needs and that means it is the custodial parent that has the job of NOT alienating the separated parent.

I'm guessing you probably got a few kids yourself you don't pay child support for. And this is your weird way of justifying yourself...

I had one son who is now 33, and my own Child Support case is closed and over long years ago.

So there is nothing to justify for me, and my intention is to help other families being ruined by the Child Support and Custody laws.


.

 

[LusbyMom]

So long as you keep the law between your children and their Dad then your family will never function properly, and there will never be peace.

The custodial has no business hiding behind the law.


.

Sometimes you have to use the law when a man doesn't have enough balls to grow up and be a father.

 

[LusbyMom]

So long as you keep the law between your children and their Dad then your family will never function properly, and there will never be peace.

The custodial has no business hiding behind the law.


.

So should your ex should have followed you around the country when you deserted your son? Now that sounds like a properly functioning family.

 

[Toxick]

Sometimes you have to use the law when a man doesn't have enough balls to grow up and be a father.

According to him, people magically start acting their age and become good, kind, loving people when they have a child. "It's nature".

Rational people understand this is a delusion, yet he clings to this delusion with a tenacity the likes of which I have never seen. Until you get him to overcome this delusion then arguing with him is like ... well, there are no good analogies. Arguing with him is like no other experience available to mankind.

And thank the Good Lord for that.