A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1431  
Old October 21st 06, 09:04 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"?-?" wrote in message
. com...

"teachrmama" wrote in

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just
isn't done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set
for the daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him
that his other children were irrelevant.

Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my
child would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the
country. How does this work?


I don't know about your case. In my husband's case, he was told that
the almost-13-year-old he had just found out about was the only one
the courts would look at in setting CS--and that our 2 daughters were
irrelevant to how much $$$ he would be assigned to pay.


When are you going to accept that not only are subsequent children
irrelevant in CS cases for prior children, but subsequemnt
wives/husbands are, too?

Unless you think that when the CP has more children, the CS should go
up?


Even when the "subsequent" children come along first.
If a couple have a support order and have more children, you can bet the
C$ WILL go up otherwise, it's not HIS child so would be uninvolved in
the money side.
It has nothing to DO with children; it's simply options the weak latch
onto as a means to leech money.
Phil #3



  #1432  
Old October 21st 06, 09:45 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"?-?" wrote in message
. com...

"teachrmama" wrote in

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just

isn't
done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the
daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him that his

other
children were irrelevant.

Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my
child would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the

country.
How does this work?


I don't know about your case. In my husband's case, he was told that

the
almost-13-year-old he had just found out about was the only one the

courts
would look at in setting CS--and that our 2 daughters were irrelevant to
how much $$$ he would be assigned to pay.


When are you going to accept that not only are subsequent children
irrelevant in CS cases for prior children, but subsequemnt wives/husbands
are, too?


Subsequent children are relevant when the CP has a second child with the
same father. The subsequent child gets a lower CS amount than the first
child.

But the baby whelpers who have multiple children with multiple fathers get
each case treated in a vacuum. This allows them to collect "first child" CS
money multiple times. Three children with three different men pays more
than three children with the same man.


Unless you think that when the CP has more children, the CS should go up?


It already does go up. What is your point?


  #1433  
Old October 21st 06, 09:47 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"Bob Whiteside" wrote
.....................................

But the baby whelpers who have multiple children with multiple fathers get
each case treated in a vacuum. This allows them to collect "first child"
CS
money multiple times. Three children with three different men pays more
than three children with the same man.

==
Now you tell me. Damn.


  #1434  
Old October 21st 06, 11:21 PM posted to alt.child-support,soc.men
pandora
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Marg discovers merit


"PolishKnight" wrote in message
ups.com...
This is an old post, but with so much juicy stuff:


You must be terminally (one can only hope), bored to pull up an old post.

CWQ

pandora wrote:
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message


try to shame them, and claim men have been marginalized to get them to

shut
up so the femwits don't have to hear what men have to say.


We hear you, we just point and laugh when you say stupid things.


This is how feminists act when they _believe_ they have power: As
arrogant and dimissive as they claimed the evil patriarchs treated
women. Of course, the second the "good" patriarchs stop chivalrously
protecting them, that's the end of such arrogance.

Obviously, you're either too stupid to get it OR just don't wish to

admit
that the status of women has changed. Don't worry about it, women will
continue to do that which they wish to and those like yourself will be

left
behind.


Which ties into:

Affirmative action was only a stop gap measure to deal with such

as
yourself; those with prejudices, and to force them to comply

with
the
laws.
Most comply these days and so, affirmative action isn't needed

to
the
same
extent.


So you admit that women will always need training wheels to deal with
their shortcomings or boogymen under the bed. Apparently, the sexist
men are able to stick around without special programs.

Think about it: while career women are always just one program short of
stability the sexist men will _always_ be with us ready to put them
back into the kitchen at a moment's notice.

It wasn't special rights at all but rather opportunities that had been
denied them heretofore and to achieve equality. It was the agenda of

such
as you that made AA necessary in the first place. Stuff it boyo.


Gee, plenty of such sexist men came to the states and were denied
opportunities including Catholics and Chinese men and they ultimately
became successful. Oh, wait, they didn't need handholding lest they
run back to the kitchen. Nevermind.

That pity party may have worked in the past but it's quickly becoming
tired and old as these women find it more difficult to blame boogymen
for their failures. What then? Maybe blame space aliens next for
women's inability to compete with men without special programs. :-)

Are you telling me that you actually believe that men/fathers do half

the
child rearing in our society? Guys have a long way to go before they

can
state that with any honesty and until they are actually DOING half, they
won't be getting half custody.


Gee, that might also explain why men were more successfull and earned
more than women: They did the actual work. They don't hand out nobel
prizes for squeezing out babies and staying home with them all day.

Now, suddenly, Marg has discovered MERIT: When she sees that women are
doing some work. Suddenly, she doesn't buy into victim handouts when
most of the pity recipients would be men.

So here are some clues to the source of your deep anger towards men.


I have no anger toward men at all.


Sure you do. If you didn't have anger, then you'd have to acknowledge
that men are actually your protecters and benefactors rather than
oppressors. Biting the hand that has fed you has let you feel more
important, so far. Fortunately, you'll live to see that change.

You
felt used for helping your husband get ahead.


Nope. It was MY choice to do so as we couldn't be together any other

way.
MY salary was necessary in order for us to live/eat/etc, and I cared

about
him getting his degree. It was for both of us that he did so and I was
quite willing to pull my weight.


Yikes, I hate to agree with Marg here but she did live out the
_traditional_ life and worked for a small while long enough to cash in
on her husband's career and that's how it's been ever since.

In fact, most feminists are products either of traditionalism and take
it for granted OR women such as Parg who are angry that they actually
had to work for a living and pay the bills.

Maybe if you had been stuck working and paying the bills without an
evil man around to support you then maybe you might have been a little
more grateful when one came along.

You felt subservient for
being a SAH mom.


Nope. Again, it was a matter of choice (you do know what CHOICE is,

don't
you, well maybe not), to do such as my salary was the lower one and in

those
days, daycares wouldn't take infants. At least not around here where we
live.


Indeed: Such as the choice for women for millennia to raise children
and have men EARN workplace credit and pay the bills. This choice
explains women's "lack of opportunities" moreso than evil sexists
hiding under the bed.



  #1435  
Old October 21st 06, 11:53 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"?-?" wrote in message
. com...

"teachrmama" wrote in

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just isn't
done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the
daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him that his other
children were irrelevant.

Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my
child would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the
country. How does this work?


I don't know about your case. In my husband's case, he was told that the
almost-13-year-old he had just found out about was the only one the
courts would look at in setting CS--and that our 2 daughters were
irrelevant to how much $$$ he would be assigned to pay.


When are you going to accept that not only are subsequent children
irrelevant in CS cases for prior children, but subsequemnt wives/husbands
are, too?

Unless you think that when the CP has more children, the CS should go up?


What on earth are you talking about, Moon?


  #1436  
Old October 22nd 06, 10:45 PM posted to alt.child-support,soc.men
PolishKnight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Marg discovers merit

I glanced at it some time ago and thought about a response. Take it as
a compliment: I found the notion of you claiming that powerless sexist
chumps required massive government programs to protect empowered women
to be rather thought provoking.

regards,
PolishKnight

In article ,
"pandora" wrote:

"PolishKnight" wrote in message
ups.com...
This is an old post, but with so much juicy stuff:


You must be terminally (one can only hope), bored to pull up an old post.

CWQ

pandora wrote:
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message


try to shame them, and claim men have been marginalized to get them to
shut
up so the femwits don't have to hear what men have to say.

We hear you, we just point and laugh when you say stupid things.


This is how feminists act when they _believe_ they have power: As
arrogant and dimissive as they claimed the evil patriarchs treated
women. Of course, the second the "good" patriarchs stop chivalrously
protecting them, that's the end of such arrogance.

Obviously, you're either too stupid to get it OR just don't wish to

admit
that the status of women has changed. Don't worry about it, women will
continue to do that which they wish to and those like yourself will be

left
behind.


Which ties into:

Affirmative action was only a stop gap measure to deal with such

as
yourself; those with prejudices, and to force them to comply

with
the
laws.
Most comply these days and so, affirmative action isn't needed

to
the
same
extent.


So you admit that women will always need training wheels to deal with
their shortcomings or boogymen under the bed. Apparently, the sexist
men are able to stick around without special programs.

Think about it: while career women are always just one program short of
stability the sexist men will _always_ be with us ready to put them
back into the kitchen at a moment's notice.

It wasn't special rights at all but rather opportunities that had been
denied them heretofore and to achieve equality. It was the agenda of

such
as you that made AA necessary in the first place. Stuff it boyo.


Gee, plenty of such sexist men came to the states and were denied
opportunities including Catholics and Chinese men and they ultimately
became successful. Oh, wait, they didn't need handholding lest they
run back to the kitchen. Nevermind.

That pity party may have worked in the past but it's quickly becoming
tired and old as these women find it more difficult to blame boogymen
for their failures. What then? Maybe blame space aliens next for
women's inability to compete with men without special programs. :-)

Are you telling me that you actually believe that men/fathers do half

the
child rearing in our society? Guys have a long way to go before they

can
state that with any honesty and until they are actually DOING half, they
won't be getting half custody.


Gee, that might also explain why men were more successfull and earned
more than women: They did the actual work. They don't hand out nobel
prizes for squeezing out babies and staying home with them all day.

Now, suddenly, Marg has discovered MERIT: When she sees that women are
doing some work. Suddenly, she doesn't buy into victim handouts when
most of the pity recipients would be men.

So here are some clues to the source of your deep anger towards men.

I have no anger toward men at all.


Sure you do. If you didn't have anger, then you'd have to acknowledge
that men are actually your protecters and benefactors rather than
oppressors. Biting the hand that has fed you has let you feel more
important, so far. Fortunately, you'll live to see that change.

You
felt used for helping your husband get ahead.

Nope. It was MY choice to do so as we couldn't be together any other

way.
MY salary was necessary in order for us to live/eat/etc, and I cared

about
him getting his degree. It was for both of us that he did so and I was
quite willing to pull my weight.


Yikes, I hate to agree with Marg here but she did live out the
_traditional_ life and worked for a small while long enough to cash in
on her husband's career and that's how it's been ever since.

In fact, most feminists are products either of traditionalism and take
it for granted OR women such as Parg who are angry that they actually
had to work for a living and pay the bills.

Maybe if you had been stuck working and paying the bills without an
evil man around to support you then maybe you might have been a little
more grateful when one came along.

You felt subservient for
being a SAH mom.

Nope. Again, it was a matter of choice (you do know what CHOICE is,

don't
you, well maybe not), to do such as my salary was the lower one and in

those
days, daycares wouldn't take infants. At least not around here where we
live.


Indeed: Such as the choice for women for millennia to raise children
and have men EARN workplace credit and pay the bills. This choice
explains women's "lack of opportunities" moreso than evil sexists
hiding under the bed.



  #1437  
Old October 23rd 06, 01:46 AM posted to alt.child-support,soc.men
pandora
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Marg discovers merit


"PolishKnight" wrote in message
news:marek1-646C65.17453522102006@news...
I glanced at it some time ago and thought about a response. Take it as
a compliment: I found the notion of you claiming that powerless sexist
chumps required massive government programs to protect empowered women
to be rather thought provoking.


And I find nothing thought provoking about you in any way/shape/form. You
are quite insane.

CWQ

regards,
PolishKnight

In article ,
"pandora" wrote:

"PolishKnight" wrote in message
ups.com...
This is an old post, but with so much juicy stuff:


You must be terminally (one can only hope), bored to pull up an old

post.

CWQ

pandora wrote:
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

try to shame them, and claim men have been marginalized to get

them to
shut
up so the femwits don't have to hear what men have to say.

We hear you, we just point and laugh when you say stupid things.

This is how feminists act when they _believe_ they have power: As
arrogant and dimissive as they claimed the evil patriarchs treated
women. Of course, the second the "good" patriarchs stop chivalrously
protecting them, that's the end of such arrogance.

Obviously, you're either too stupid to get it OR just don't wish to

admit
that the status of women has changed. Don't worry about it, women

will
continue to do that which they wish to and those like yourself will

be
left
behind.

Which ties into:

Affirmative action was only a stop gap measure to deal with

such
as
yourself; those with prejudices, and to force them to comply

with
the
laws.
Most comply these days and so, affirmative action isn't

needed
to
the
same
extent.

So you admit that women will always need training wheels to deal with
their shortcomings or boogymen under the bed. Apparently, the sexist
men are able to stick around without special programs.

Think about it: while career women are always just one program short

of
stability the sexist men will _always_ be with us ready to put them
back into the kitchen at a moment's notice.

It wasn't special rights at all but rather opportunities that had

been
denied them heretofore and to achieve equality. It was the agenda

of
such
as you that made AA necessary in the first place. Stuff it boyo.

Gee, plenty of such sexist men came to the states and were denied
opportunities including Catholics and Chinese men and they ultimately
became successful. Oh, wait, they didn't need handholding lest they
run back to the kitchen. Nevermind.

That pity party may have worked in the past but it's quickly becoming
tired and old as these women find it more difficult to blame boogymen
for their failures. What then? Maybe blame space aliens next for
women's inability to compete with men without special programs. :-)

Are you telling me that you actually believe that men/fathers do

half
the
child rearing in our society? Guys have a long way to go before

they
can
state that with any honesty and until they are actually DOING half,

they
won't be getting half custody.

Gee, that might also explain why men were more successfull and earned
more than women: They did the actual work. They don't hand out nobel
prizes for squeezing out babies and staying home with them all day.

Now, suddenly, Marg has discovered MERIT: When she sees that women are
doing some work. Suddenly, she doesn't buy into victim handouts when
most of the pity recipients would be men.

So here are some clues to the source of your deep anger towards

men.

I have no anger toward men at all.

Sure you do. If you didn't have anger, then you'd have to acknowledge
that men are actually your protecters and benefactors rather than
oppressors. Biting the hand that has fed you has let you feel more
important, so far. Fortunately, you'll live to see that change.

You
felt used for helping your husband get ahead.

Nope. It was MY choice to do so as we couldn't be together any

other
way.
MY salary was necessary in order for us to live/eat/etc, and I cared

about
him getting his degree. It was for both of us that he did so and I

was
quite willing to pull my weight.

Yikes, I hate to agree with Marg here but she did live out the
_traditional_ life and worked for a small while long enough to cash in
on her husband's career and that's how it's been ever since.

In fact, most feminists are products either of traditionalism and take
it for granted OR women such as Parg who are angry that they actually
had to work for a living and pay the bills.

Maybe if you had been stuck working and paying the bills without an
evil man around to support you then maybe you might have been a little
more grateful when one came along.

You felt subservient for
being a SAH mom.

Nope. Again, it was a matter of choice (you do know what CHOICE is,

don't
you, well maybe not), to do such as my salary was the lower one and

in
those
days, daycares wouldn't take infants. At least not around here

where we
live.

Indeed: Such as the choice for women for millennia to raise children
and have men EARN workplace credit and pay the bills. This choice
explains women's "lack of opportunities" moreso than evil sexists
hiding under the bed.





  #1438  
Old October 23rd 06, 02:49 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
?-?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"?-?" wrote in message
. com...

"teachrmama" wrote in

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just isn't
done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the
daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him that his other
children were irrelevant.


Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my
child would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the country.
How does this work?


I don't know about your case. In my husband's case, he was told that the
almost-13-year-old he had just found out about was the only one the courts
would look at in setting CS--and that our 2 daughters were irrelevant to
how much $$$ he would be assigned to pay.


It's very ironic that I have one government agency telling me I have to pay
money to supprt a child in need, and another government agency saying the
child doesn't need the money.





  #1439  
Old October 23rd 06, 08:02 AM posted to alt.child-support,soc.men
Rev. Gantry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Marg discovers merit


"pandora" wrote in message
news:F6idnTFvos72jaHYnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"PolishKnight" wrote in message
news:marek1-646C65.17453522102006@news...
I glanced at it some time ago and thought about a response. Take it as
a compliment: I found the notion of you claiming that powerless sexist
chumps required massive government programs to protect empowered women
to be rather thought provoking.


And I find nothing thought provoking



You need a brain first )


  #1440  
Old October 23rd 06, 12:39 PM posted to alt.child-support,soc.men
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Marg discovers merit


pandora wrote:
"PolishKnight" wrote in message
news:marek1-646C65.17453522102006@news...
I glanced at it some time ago and thought about a response. Take it as
a compliment: I found the notion of you claiming that powerless sexist
chumps required massive government programs to protect empowered women
to be rather thought provoking.


And I find nothing thought provoking about you in any way/shape/form. You
are quite insane.


Mark 1, Marg 0

Don't worry Marg, you got soundly outdebated and I enjoyed every word
of it. ;-)

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NCP ACTION ALERT!!! NY Shared Parenting bill under attack!! Dusty Child Support 4 March 8th 06 07:45 AM
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding Dusty Child Support 0 March 2nd 06 01:49 AM
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! S Myers Child Support 115 September 12th 05 12:37 AM
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children Dusty Child Support 0 May 13th 04 12:46 AM
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA Fighting for kids Child Support 21 November 17th 03 02:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.