Cox Strategy Targets Child Support Deadbeats

You referred to something I had posted to another person. So I
responded to your stupid comment, that was directed at me and about
another post.

Keep up ding dong

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:45:22 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

So why did you reply to my post, dumb****?

Fighting For Kids wrote:

Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things.
You are such an ass.

For calling you on your stupidity? Soooooo sorry : ) But then, one
doesn't need to be very bright to spot it....

Mel Gamble

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
wrote: " No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.

fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
"fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".

And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...

Mel Gamble

wrote:

However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
knows
how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
many factors missing in her education...

Fighting for kids wrote:

Snore...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
And this...............
Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
support
laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
could
it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
parents can spend this tax-free gift

Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
twice ?

on anything they want: booze, drugs,
new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
knows
how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
the child.

No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.

Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.

I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.

Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
to
this very same committee in 1995).

Where? What study?

Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
increasing child well-being?

Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
correlate at all.

The intact family, something not terribly
popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
less).

And raising a child alone is not work?

Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
doing it...

A recent study showed that a stay at
home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.

Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )

Mel Gamble

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Matt D" wrote in message
om...
Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
causes
poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
abandoned
their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
parent
has."


What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.

And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
"In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
question directly have concluded otherwise."

I like you. I really do.
I hate poor spelling and really bad grammatical errors. And I don't believe
they should be overlooked just because someone wants to be creative.

~AZ~

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
It's "you're" as in "you are" or "You're confused."
I believe you where attempting to say, "You're confused, it doesn't
surprise
me." Or you could have been attempting to say, "You have me confused,
which
doesn't surprise me." Or it may have been you where attempting to
blather..
"I'm so confused, don't surprise me!" Or you may well have thought to
say,
but your fingers couldn't move to the appropriate keys because of the
medication you're on.. "I'm so stupid, I can't form coherent sentences
much
less type them in an intelligible manner for others to read."

Which one is it?

And while you're at it - pick a friggin' name and stick to it!!!!

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...

Your confused, doesnt surprise me!!!

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:43:14 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

[snip]

Translation: "I didn't bother to read before responding - just saw one
of my aliases and fired off a blather without thinking."

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:

You referred to something I had posted to another person. So I
responded to your stupid comment, that was directed at me and about
another post.

Keep up ding dong

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:45:22 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

So why did you reply to my post, dumb****?

Fighting For Kids wrote:

Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things.
You are such an ass.

For calling you on your stupidity? Soooooo sorry : ) But then, one
doesn't need to be very bright to spot it....

Mel Gamble

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
wrote: " No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.

fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
"fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".

And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...

Mel Gamble

wrote:

However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
knows
how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
many factors missing in her education...

Fighting for kids wrote:

Snore...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
And this...............
Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
support
laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
could
it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
parents can spend this tax-free gift

Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
twice ?

on anything they want: booze, drugs,
new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
knows
how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
the child.

No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.

Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.

I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.

Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
to
this very same committee in 1995).

Where? What study?

Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
increasing child well-being?

Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
correlate at all.

The intact family, something not terribly
popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
less).

And raising a child alone is not work?

Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
doing it...

A recent study showed that a stay at
home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.

Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )

Mel Gamble

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Matt D" wrote in message
om...
Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
causes
poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
abandoned
their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
parent
has."


What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.

And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
"In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
question directly have concluded otherwise."

Sorry but I dont think so.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:10:48 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Translation: "I didn't bother to read before responding - just saw one
of my aliases and fired off a blather without thinking."

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:

You referred to something I had posted to another person. So I
responded to your stupid comment, that was directed at me and about
another post.

Keep up ding dong

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:45:22 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

So why did you reply to my post, dumb****?

Fighting For Kids wrote:

Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things.
You are such an ass.

For calling you on your stupidity? Soooooo sorry : ) But then, one
doesn't need to be very bright to spot it....

Mel Gamble

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
wrote: " No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.

fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
"fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".

And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...

Mel Gamble

wrote:

However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
knows
how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
many factors missing in her education...

Fighting for kids wrote:

Snore...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
And this...............
Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
support
laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
could
it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
parents can spend this tax-free gift

Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
twice ?

on anything they want: booze, drugs,
new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
knows
how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
the child.

No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.

Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.

I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.

Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
to
this very same committee in 1995).

Where? What study?

Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
increasing child well-being?

Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
correlate at all.

The intact family, something not terribly
popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
less).

And raising a child alone is not work?

Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
doing it...

A recent study showed that a stay at
home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.

Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )

Mel Gamble

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Matt D" wrote in message
om...
Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
causes
poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
abandoned
their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
parent
has."


What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.

And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
"In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
question directly have concluded otherwise."

: : : :

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:

Sorry but I dont think.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:10:48 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Translation: "I didn't bother to read before responding - just saw one
of my aliases and fired off a blather without thinking."

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:

You referred to something I had posted to another person. So I
responded to your stupid comment, that was directed at me and about
another post.

Keep up ding dong

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:45:22 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

So why did you reply to my post, dumb****?

Fighting For Kids wrote:

Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things.
You are such an ass.

For calling you on your stupidity? Soooooo sorry : ) But then, one
doesn't need to be very bright to spot it....

Mel Gamble

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
wrote: " No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.

fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
"fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".

And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...

Mel Gamble

wrote:

However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
knows
how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
many factors missing in her education...

Fighting for kids wrote:

Snore...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
And this...............
Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
support
laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
could
it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
parents can spend this tax-free gift

Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
twice ?

on anything they want: booze, drugs,
new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
knows
how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
the child.

No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.

Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.

I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.

Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
to
this very same committee in 1995).

Where? What study?

Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
increasing child well-being?

Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
correlate at all.

The intact family, something not terribly
popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
less).

And raising a child alone is not work?

Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
doing it...

A recent study showed that a stay at
home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.

Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )

Mel Gamble

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Matt D" wrote in message
om...
Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
causes
poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
abandoned
their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
parent
has."


What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.

And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
"In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
question directly have concluded otherwise."

: : : :

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:

Sorry but I dont think.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:10:48 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Translation: "I didn't bother to read before responding - just saw one
of my aliases and fired off a blather without thinking."

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:

You referred to something I had posted to another person. So I
responded to your stupid comment, that was directed at me and about
another post.

Keep up ding dong

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:45:22 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

So why did you reply to my post, dumb****?

Fighting For Kids wrote:

Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things.
You are such an ass.

For calling you on your stupidity? Soooooo sorry : ) But then, one
doesn't need to be very bright to spot it....

Mel Gamble

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1
wrote: " No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.",
indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the
researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't.

fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the
point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that
"fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids".

And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original
article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of
fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it...

Mel Gamble

wrote:

However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody
knows
how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of
many factors missing in her education...

Fighting for kids wrote:

Snore...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
And this...............
Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child
support
laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how
could
it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial
parents can spend this tax-free gift

Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed
twice ?

on anything they want: booze, drugs,
new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody
knows
how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S.
Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on
the child.

No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.

Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents
that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines.

I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each
parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and
fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it.

Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments
rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented
to
this very same committee in 1995).

Where? What study?

Why? Money is a destabilizer or put
differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for
increasing child well-being?

Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things
such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support
has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such
things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no
one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont
correlate at all.

The intact family, something not terribly
popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during
economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like
welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no
less).

And raising a child alone is not work?

Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for
doing it...

A recent study showed that a stay at
home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO
full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to
do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most"
NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts
ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work.

Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an
assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : )

Mel Gamble

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Matt D" wrote in message
om...
Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that
causes
poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've
abandoned
their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a
parent
has."


What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as
opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first
place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that.

And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver...
"In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily
abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever
demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the
question directly have concluded otherwise."