"You had the child, so you should pay"

When someone tells a man "you had the child, so you should pay", what
exactly does that mean and precisely how is such conclusion determined?

On Feb 27, 1:11 pm, "Chris" wrote:
When someone tells a man "you had the child, so you should pay", what
exactly does that mean and precisely how is such conclusion determined?

I would assume it means exactly what it sounds ha.. But, if you're
looking for a way to calm the lady down.. try this site www.imagineyourphotos.com
and put in TEST 5 to get an additional 30% off. Get her something from
there and It will defenilty make her think twice before saying that
saying again.................

This is an excuse that a liberal uses to justify their unjust policies.
Most idiotic policies have some stupid non-thinking phrase, such as "For the
Children" or "My Body, My Choice" as though their excuses for the injustices
can be said in just a few words with everything else being ignored.

"You had the child, so you should pay" is their way of saying, "Please don't
bother me with your problem, your logic would be too overwhelming for me to
handle"

Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with:

* Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a
fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who
had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their
stead in accordance to proxy. The amount is usually determined by 'average'
wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and
all the poor people, and finding a middle. ie, he made $1,000,000 last
year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per
year. (poor man gets screwed again)
* The fixed amount that is established cannot be retro 'fixed' in accordance
with the ACTUAL income of the father (it would be unfair for the child, now
wouldn't it?) even if the father knew nothing about the court order, didn't
make as much as the courts 'assumed' he did, cannot in a million years pay
back the amount with his education and abilities, and even if nobody
bothered to tell him anything for the last 5 years, not even that the child
existed.

I have met some of the career prostitutes of today's age that collect on the
child support. Women that have completely admitted that their goal is to
screw, get pregnant with as many men as possible, and collect.

I have met some of the children in today's age where child support is still
being magically collected from the CUSTODIAL parent, and the child sees none
of it.

According to the liberal, these are just one in a million. According to the
liberal it is just a sad fact of life that has to be, nothing to do about
it. According to the liberal, men are nothing to worry about, just screw
them.

Liberals are just simple suffering from poor brain rot.


"Chris" wrote in message
...
When someone tells a man "you had the child, so you should pay", what
exactly does that mean and precisely how is such conclusion determined?




--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95

On Mar 6, 10:29�am, "Mr. Anonymous" wrote:

Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with:

* Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a
fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who
had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their
stead in accordance to proxy. *The amount is usually determined by 'average'
wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and
all the poor people, and finding a middle. *ie, he made $1,000,000 last
year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per
year. *(poor man gets screwed again)


This is NOT how child support is calculated. Are you drinking or
something?

This is not even remotely accurate.

"Relayer"wrote
"Mr. Anonymous" wrote:

Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with:

* Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a
fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who
had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their
stead in accordance to proxy. The amount is usually determined by
'average'
wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and
all the poor people, and finding a middle. ie, he made $1,000,000 last
year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per
year. (poor man gets screwed again)


This is NOT how child support is calculated. Are you drinking or
something?

This is not even remotely accurate.
==
In addition to being clueless, he's more concerned with politics than CS
issues so might as well
be killfiled and ignored.

On Mar 6, 11:27�am, "Gini" wrote:
"Relayer"wrote

"Mr. Anonymous" *wrote:

Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with:

* Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a
fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who
had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their
stead in accordance to proxy. The amount is usually determined by
'average'
wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and
all the poor people, and finding a middle. ie, he made $1,000,000 last
year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per
year. (poor man gets screwed again)

This is NOT how child support is calculated. Are you drinking or
something?

This is not even remotely accurate.
==
In addition to being clueless, he's more concerned with politics than CS
issues so might as well
be killfiled and ignored.

Think you are right Gini- As a side note, I pretty much knew when the
court session was going on..whoa..did I know....

Shows your ignorance on the subject. Perhaps you haven't paid any attention
to some of the issues people on this board have faced, including myself.
But since I am talking for bold faced experience and you are talking out
your ass, I guess you just don't know.

"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 6, 10:29?am, "Mr. Anonymous" wrote:

Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with:

* Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a
fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who
had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their
stead in accordance to proxy. The amount is usually determined by
'average'
wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and
all the poor people, and finding a middle. ie, he made $1,000,000 last
year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per
year. (poor man gets screwed again)


This is NOT how child support is calculated. Are you drinking or
something?

This is not even remotely accurate.



--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95

On Mar 6, 12:10�pm, "Mr. Anonymous" wrote:
Shows your ignorance on the subject. *Perhaps you haven't paid any attention
to some of the issues people on this board have faced, including myself.
But since I am talking for bold faced experience and you are talking out
your ass, I guess you just don't know.


I am hardly ignorant on the subject and you are flat out 100%
delussional.

Here is a facinating story who suddenly owed $9,000 in child support, while
on unemployment:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29035.html

Two months later, after the phone conversations had ended and he assumed he
was off the hook, Pierce received notice that a "default judgment" had been
entered against him, and that he owed $9,000 in child support. He was
between dot-com jobs, and his next unemployment check was 25 percent
smaller; the state of California had seized and diverted $100 toward his
first payment. Suddenly, he was facing several years of automatic wage
garnishment, and the shame of being forced to explain to prospective
employers why the government considered him a deadbeat dad. "That's when it
hit me," he says. "I mean, it's mostly my fault -- 'Fill out the form,
dumb-ass!'...But it's so rigged against you, it's ridiculous."


Here is a story for us all to enjoy:

My name is Ron Poirier, and I am a divorced father. I am lucky enough to
share joint physical placement of my son with my ex-wife, and have done
so since the day we separated. Some time ago, I was jailed for not
paying child support even though I had never missed a payment (my
ex-wife even called the police station and insisted that I had made
every payment, but that didn't help). In the end, my state helped itself
to hundreds of dollars that were never owed and tried to help itself to
hundreds more until I threatened to report one of the local child
support enforcement lawyers to the state bar association if they didn't
back off.

I don't think I'm exaggerating too much when I say that you could in
fact do an entire season on the steaming pile of bull**** associated
with America's fine "family" court. There is the public opinion painting
all divorced husbands and fathers of our nation as wifebeating, child
molesting ogres who ran off with their secretaries (when in fact 70% of
divorces today are initiated by wives for reasons that have nothing to
do with criminal or even antisocial behavior on the part of their
husbands). There is the bull**** "best interests of the child" custody
standard (when the best interests of the child are *truly* served by a
rebuttable presumption of joint physical placement rather than the
current "winner takes all" philosophy that pits parent against parent
with the child caught in the middle for the financial benefit of
lawyers). There is the bull**** of child support rates being set by
states who know they will receive a percentage of whatever they collect
for the custodial parents in federal incentive payments (conflict of
interests, anyone?). There is the bull**** of paternity (dads who can
prove they aren't the father or are (incredibly!) male victims of
STATUTORY RAPE on the part of the mother but are forced to pay child
support anyway). There is the bull**** of the "dead-beat dad" (when in
reality fathers have a far better track record of making child support
payments than mothers, and in any event most "dead-beat dads" are really
"beat-dead dads" who even some agents of the government admit simply
don't have the money to pay). There is more than enough fuel to keep the
fire going for some time.

Most media channels shrink away from exposing the sad truth about this
bull**** institution, but you aren't "most media". Please, for the
fathers and children of our country, for my little sons (who will likely
be fathers themselves someday), take the time to look into just one of
the awful situations created by the current system.


More fun stories:
I have posted here before, about a nightmarish arrears case in
southern California. After cooperating with the courts and repaying
every penny I owed, the LCSA is trying to gouge me for another $24K in
"super secret" interest, tabulated from the day my divorce was
final...25 years ago. I was married for less than three years, and I
now live in a different state.

So, to get these awful people off my back, I have made a lump-sum
settlement offer, to cover the legitimate interest that accrued while
I was paying the arrears. I have waited three weeks for a reply on my
offer, and today I learned the LCSA filed a garnishment notice for
wages from my part-time job. I have not been able to secure full-time
work since last August, and I desperately need the part-time dough to
pay whatever of my bills that I can. I was absolutely furious that
they had taken this action when they had led me to believe that we
were 'negotiating' a settlement. Now, I can't make my rent. I called
the LCSA worker who had told me someone would get back to me on my
offer, and demanded to know why she lied to me. I asked, "What kind
of good-faith negotiation is that?"




Explain this one, oh wait... you can't:
http://awomanagainstfeminism.blogspo...-systemic.html

Twenty One Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men

- The American woman by the 1960s lived in the nation with the world's
highest standard of living and owned 65% of the wealth in that nation.

- Feminists "felt victimized", however, and convinced American women that
they are "discriminated against".

- Never have they been required to nor been able to produce a shred of
statistical evidence to back up that claim.

- Twenty one key statistical indicators each illustrate how men have been
and are being systematically discriminated against by government fiat.

1. WEALTH: Women hold 65% of the country's wealth [Fortune Magazine]

2. CHILD CUSTODY: Women receive custody of 92% of the children of divorce
and illegitimacy, and men only 4%. [Department of Health & Human Services]

3. INCOME: Men constitute 60% of workplace hours, work longer hours, work
harder, and are more qualified, rarely file sexual discrimination or
harassment lawsuits or take pregnancy leave, yet earn only 42% more than
women [Dept. Labor]

4. SUICIDE: Men's suicide rate is 4.6 times higher than women's [Dept.
Health & Human Services -- 26,710 males vs 5,700 females]

5. LIFE EXPECTANCY: Men's life expectancy is seven (7) years shorter than
women's [National Center for Health Statistics -- males 72.3 yrs vs females
79 yrs] yet receive only 35% of government expenditures for health care and
medical costs.

6. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Men are discriminated against BY DESIGN through
affirmative action.

7. FEDERAL TAXES: Even though men pay 115% of federal income taxes women
constitute 11% more of the voters.

8. VOTE: Because there are 11% more female than male voters, males have
little to no influence on how the male tax dollar is spent.

9. WAR: Men, not women, fight and die in battle [Dept. Defense -- Vietnam
Casualties 47,369 men vs 74 women] while women sue the taxpayer when they
have their butt pinched.

10. WORKPLACE FATALITIES: Men account for more than 95% of workplace
fatalities.

11. MURDER: Men are murdered at a rate almost 5 times that of women [Dept.
Health & Human Services -- 26,710 men vs 5,700 women]

12. JURY BIAS: Women are acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that
of men [Bureau Justice Statistics -- 1.4% of men vs 12.9% of women]

13. COURT BIAS: Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal
murder [Bureau Justice Statistics -- men at 17 years vs women at 6 years]

14. JUSTICE SYSTEM BIAS: Even though the amount of the average "child
support payment" due from women is half the amount due from men, and even
though women are twice as likely as men to default on those payments,
fathers are 97% of "child support" collections prosecutions [Census Bureau]

15. WELFA Even though men are the recipients of less than 10% of all
welfare disbursements, men are required to refund welfare payments made to
women.

16. SECONDARY EDUCATION: Even though zero percent of American 12th grade
girls were able to correctly answer basic math and physics questions, less
than one quarter of America's secondary and elementary school teachers are
men.

17. HIGHER EDUCATION: There are more than 200 all-female colleges for women
and now not one single all-male college for men. 5.8% fewer men than women
are enrolled in 4 year colleges, even though two thirds of those who score
higher than 550 in SAT Math are males. In 1993 only 44.5% of college
enrollment were men, and that figure has declined since then. Only 45.8% of
of bachelor's degrees were conferred to men in 1992, even though 98.2% of
the top fiftieth percentile of the GRE are men, and ZERO PERCENT of American
high school girls correctly answered 28 out of 67 TIMSS advanced math
questions. Only 38.4% of private 4 year college students were men as of
1990, and this figure has declined since then.

18. LEGAL SYSTEM BIAS: 96% of physical altercations resulting in injury to a
spouse occurs AFTER the date of separation. [Read: spousal abuse laws that
pretend that husbands are dangerous discriminate against husbands when we
know that only a very small percent of domestic violence is associated with
them]. [Chadwick and Heaton, "Statistical Handbook of the American Family"]

19. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Even though study after study shows that women are
the majority of the initiators of domestic violence, and 58% of the above
mentioned physical altercations are initiated by the female, Congress passed
the obviously anti-male VAWA and VAWA II.which are known would make the
problem far worse. [Read: despite the fact we discriminate against husbands
in protective orders, women still cause more than half of domestic
altercations because they know they can get away with it].

20. CHILD VIOLENCE: Even though mothers commit 55% of child murders and
biological fathers commit 6%, even though NIS-3 shows that Mother-only
households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households,
children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their
most effective protectors and men are imprisoned at rate 20 times that of
women.

21. FAMILY BREAKDOWN: The US Surgeon General notes that divorce is more
harmful to a man's health than smoking tobacco, yet as much as $1.3 Trillion
of federal expenditures accomplish little else than undermine family
stability.

22. WOMEN PILOTS: Even though women pilots have an accident rate four times
that of men pilots, federal laws require that airlines risk the safety of
passengers and hire women pilots anyway.

23. WOMEN DRIVERS: Even though the crash rate of women drivers is twice that
of men drivers, and even though drinking alcohol increases the crash rate of
men by only 5%, the majority of those imprisoned under DUI laws are men, and
women are almost never imprisoned for their much higher number of
non-alcohol-related crashes.

24. INCARCERATION: Even though feminists brag that 1.4 million American
brides commit adultery, and even though women file more than 90,000 false
allegations of rape, every year, only 99,000 of the 1.8 million Americans
behind bars are women.
"Relayer" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Mar 6, 12:10?pm, "Mr. Anonymous" wrote:
Shows your ignorance on the subject. Perhaps you haven't paid any
attention
to some of the issues people on this board have faced, including myself.
But since I am talking for bold faced experience and you are talking out
your ass, I guess you just don't know.


I am hardly ignorant on the subject and you are flat out 100%
delussional.



--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95

When the man is not present in court and has not reported his income and it
can't be found any other convenient way, it is done by average for the area.
I know this first hand.

What is funny about the whole thing is that they can't find the man to have
him show up for court, but they almost always find him to garnish his wages
in a surprise attack.



"Gini" wrote in message news:7whHh.931$1g.177@trndny05...

"Relayer"wrote
"Mr. Anonymous" wrote:

Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with:

* Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a
fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who
had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their
stead in accordance to proxy. The amount is usually determined by
'average'
wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and
all the poor people, and finding a middle. ie, he made $1,000,000 last
year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000
per
year. (poor man gets screwed again)


This is NOT how child support is calculated. Are you drinking or
something?

This is not even remotely accurate.
==
In addition to being clueless, he's more concerned with politics than CS
issues so might as well
be killfiled and ignored.




--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95