a way for you to stop the DCSE CSE,

Barger said, "Who said it doesn't cost anything to sleep?"
I did...
In Pa. they base child support on where the kid sleeps. This is why or
should I say this is one of the reasons there is so much resistance to
shared custody in this state. The last time I checked, you do not have to
pay admission to go to bed. You do not have to tip the waitress when you
are sleeping, you do not need to be entertained when you are sleeping. For
the record my point is a NON CUSTODIAL parent needs to supply the car the
utilities the bed the bedrooms etc.. We can not just rent these things for
the weekends that the children are SLEEPING at our house and we DO PROVIDE
THEM. Therefore remove them from the equation, it is a wash.

Barger said, "You say you pay the same rate as if you would if you never saw
them. I fail to see you point on that matter."

My point is that I feed my children directly from my wallet 5 days every 10,
I entertain them 5 days every 10, I shelter them 5 days every 10 and it
COSTS MONEY. The non-custodial parent who disappears is financially farther
ahead.

Barger said, "I paid for 8 years for my two daughters from my first
marriage. Came right out of my pay. Felt good doing it too"

I can only assume you make much more money than you need to live or you paid
a very small percentage of your income. Had your support order been
oppressive, or your ex been a greedy bitch waiting and watching to see if
you found a quarter laying on the curb so that she could take her cut,
perhaps you wouldn't have felt so good doing it. I love my children and
would be more than happy to be the custodial parent without receiving child
support. I dislike being a visitor to my children and babysitting while my
ex travels the world on my child support payments. More than happy to
support them at a reasonable level, perhaps leaving enough for me to treat
them and provide for them like I am truly able instead of the fraction that
remains.

Barger said, "You act like having a car, utilities, etc. is automatic. How
can you leave those things out of the equation? I do not get those things
for free just because I am a parent. "

My point is everybody needs to have them to be an ADULT or a responsible
member of society. It matters not how many kids fall out of your hole.


Barger said, "I paid for 8 years for my two daughters from my first
marriage. Came right out of my pay. Felt good doing it too. "

I was always told the best soldier is a dumb soldier. We can apply that
here.


"William Barger" wrote in message
...
Leave those things out of the equation? How? Who said it doesn't cost
anything to sleep? You need a bed, sheets, blankets,etc. Kids need a
bedroom to sleep in, which is inside a... house. And why should college
funding be left out? Believe me I have been on both sides of the fence
regarding support. I paid for 8 years for my two daughters from my first
marriage. Came right out of my pay. Felt good doing it too. For the last
10 years I have been the custodial parent of Billy from my second
marriage. The only way she pays is when she is forced to do so. Like tax
returns, unemployment garnishment, etc. You say you pay the same rate as
if you would if you never saw them. I fail to see you point on that
matter.
You act like having a car, utilities, etc. is automatic. How can you
leave those things out of the equation? I do not get those things for
free just because I am a parent.
Bill

You make some excellent points. However, why do you consider me dumb for
accepting my responsibilty? Is it because I not only paid every month,
but felt good in doing so?
Bill

Sorry, I guess this whole situation (raw anus)has just made me rude and
nasty.
I am curious, do you actually believe that all of the money you gave to your
ex-wife went directly towards supporting your children?
If I had to guess, you left your wife for your girlfriend, your wife was a
peach and never tried to step on your head, and she accepted what you gave
her in child support without ever asking for more than you where willing to
give????
"SCREWEDBYJUDGEGEOTOOKIEJAMES" wrote
in message ...
Barger said, "Who said it doesn't cost anything to sleep?"
I did...
In Pa. they base child support on where the kid sleeps. This is why or
should I say this is one of the reasons there is so much resistance to
shared custody in this state. The last time I checked, you do not have to
pay admission to go to bed. You do not have to tip the waitress when you
are sleeping, you do not need to be entertained when you are sleeping.
For
the record my point is a NON CUSTODIAL parent needs to supply the car the
utilities the bed the bedrooms etc.. We can not just rent these things
for
the weekends that the children are SLEEPING at our house and we DO PROVIDE
THEM. Therefore remove them from the equation, it is a wash.

Barger said, "You say you pay the same rate as if you would if you never
saw
them. I fail to see you point on that matter."

My point is that I feed my children directly from my wallet 5 days every
10,
I entertain them 5 days every 10, I shelter them 5 days every 10 and it
COSTS MONEY. The non-custodial parent who disappears is financially
farther
ahead.

Barger said, "I paid for 8 years for my two daughters from my first
marriage. Came right out of my pay. Felt good doing it too"

I can only assume you make much more money than you need to live or you
paid
a very small percentage of your income. Had your support order been
oppressive, or your ex been a greedy bitch waiting and watching to see if
you found a quarter laying on the curb so that she could take her cut,
perhaps you wouldn't have felt so good doing it. I love my children and
would be more than happy to be the custodial parent without receiving
child
support. I dislike being a visitor to my children and babysitting while
my
ex travels the world on my child support payments. More than happy to
support them at a reasonable level, perhaps leaving enough for me to treat
them and provide for them like I am truly able instead of the fraction
that
remains.

Barger said, "You act like having a car, utilities, etc. is automatic. How
can you leave those things out of the equation? I do not get those things
for free just because I am a parent. "

My point is everybody needs to have them to be an ADULT or a responsible
member of society. It matters not how many kids fall out of your hole.


Barger said, "I paid for 8 years for my two daughters from my first
marriage. Came right out of my pay. Felt good doing it too. "

I was always told the best soldier is a dumb soldier. We can apply that
here.


"William Barger" wrote in message
...
Leave those things out of the equation? How? Who said it doesn't cost
anything to sleep? You need a bed, sheets, blankets,etc. Kids need a
bedroom to sleep in, which is inside a... house. And why should college
funding be left out? Believe me I have been on both sides of the fence
regarding support. I paid for 8 years for my two daughters from my first
marriage. Came right out of my pay. Felt good doing it too. For the last
10 years I have been the custodial parent of Billy from my second
marriage. The only way she pays is when she is forced to do so. Like tax
returns, unemployment garnishment, etc. You say you pay the same rate as
if you would if you never saw them. I fail to see you point on that
matter.
You act like having a car, utilities, etc. is automatic. How can you
leave those things out of the equation? I do not get those things for
free just because I am a parent.
Bill

[quote=William Barger]That is an excellent idea. America could get rid of all those deadbeats
assholes. American society would not miss them at all.
Bill

Are you on morphine? Women trap men...CSE trap men...why should a man be trapped for 18 years...now its 21 or until end of college, if he never had options available to him like women do ...wade vs. roe....

"William Barger" wrote in message
...
Why do people equate CS as money to their ex's?

Because that's exactly what it is. The money goes to mothers, who do
not have to account for the spending of any of it. I've even heard a
divorce attorney acknowledge that much of the supposed "child support" money
spills over to the mother, "as indeed it should."

Consider the following. It's common for the children to be with the
father for a much longer period during the summer. However, during that
period the father must continue to pay "child support" unabated to the
mother. In my experience, when fathers' groups raise the issue of abatement
of "child support" during times that the children are with their fathers,
they are told that the mothers' fixed costs, such as rent or mortgage, don't
go down when the children are not living with her. However, exactly the
same is true for fathers, whose rent or mortage remain the same when the
children are with the mother. Most states set a very high threshold for
time spent with the father before there is any abatement of "child support"
and the practice among divorce lawyers is to make sure that the time the
father gets with the children never exceeds this threshold.

Groucho Marx said that paying alimony is like feeding hay to a dead
horse. Because so much of "child support" is just disguised alimony, that's
the attitude of many fathers, including those who have no objection to
supporting their children.

I'll admit to using morphine, if you'll admit how udderly stupid you
are. So to you a man has sex, but should not be held responsible? And a
woman's option is to murder her unborn child? I thought Screwed was
whacked out, but you put him/her to shame.

Give me 1 example of whacked out!
"William Barger" wrote in message
...
I'll admit to using morphine, if you'll admit how udderly stupid you
are. So to you a man has sex, but should not be held responsible? And a
woman's option is to murder her unborn child? I thought Screwed was
whacked out, but you put him/her to shame.

Can give you many.

Interesting....

Certanly would love to see this In the Province of Quebec (Canada)!

Some people would be suprised in the percentage of people that have no
rights in their children, and yet still forced to pay child support till the
Judge changes the Court Order.

"Dave the Wave" wrote in message
...
"flinrius" wrote in
news
or you can give up your rights to the child and then you
are no longer legally the parent. I know of a case who did this and
the current support does stop.


This doesn't sound right. The courts would be unable to force men into
paying child support for children conceived by flings, one-night-stands,
etc. The males would simply relinquish any rights to the child and the
mother would be the sole financial supporter. Or, are you referring to
fathers who leave the country and relinquish any rights?