WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR

Do not get married and do not have children, the feminist socialist idiots
would go nuts, and start paying men to have kids, like I heard in some other
countries, the men folks are not getting married there or having kids, and
their governments is worried, no children, no future taxes, no income for
the government....

You Men folks should be storming the feminist groups hideouts and government
buildings and hanging the idiots to the nearest tree......


"chillin'" wrote in message
m...
I, too, always thought it was for the raising of a child to make them
better and productive citizens of society. I guess I was wrong in
thinking this as more and more cp's are asking for ungodly amounts of
raising a child that the government is siding with them in order to
keep the children and cp's off of the welfare rolls. CS should NEVER
be used to provide such things as the cp's income should provide, or
the ncp's when living with them. These things include basic housing,
food, and other things such as clothing that the cp's income should
provide in attempting to be independent of the ncp. Each parent
should raise that child(ren) on his/her income when that child is
living with them, and if a cp wants to be truly independent, then
he/she should never ask for extra money in raising that child. If you
cannot afford the child then give them up to good homes somewhere
either with the other parent, or with a good foster home that can
afford them. If you are not mature enough to get along with a spouse,
then do not get involved in a relationship to begin with. Plain and
simply put, GROW UP first! Then you just might have the maturity it
takes to get involved in a relationship and stick it out "for better
or for worse", "in sickness and in health", "til death do us part",
assuming any of that is in your marriage vows any more.

Just like all the times in the past forty years, liberal democrats, or
whatever they call themselves now in order to hide their agenda, have
taken away the basic rights of hard working, honest parents forcing
one or the other to provide for two homes while demeaning the family
unit to nothing. I cannot wait til next year to see Hitlary Clinton
running for the office of the President of the United States and her
agenda to place all men in chains to be nothing more than slaves and
under the control of the female population, and to demeanor men once
and for all in the history of the world. She is pure evil and devious
enough to do such a feat. From her actions and words out of her own
mouth, she is the spawn of the devil himself waiting for the
acceptance of a people, and today America is ripe for Satan's
pickings. Hitlary will make ALL men pay for the hurt and pain she
alone has endured throughout her life, and the lives of countless
women alleged to have been hurt by other men. CS will more than
double, and the prisons will be filled far, far beyond capacity as
more will see prison terms for not adhering to their former spouses
demands for money and whims of living. The taxes will have to be
raised to an ungodly amount in order to house the prison populations
drastic increase, the court systems lawsuits that will be unequalled
today, and our world becomes nothing but a slave prison population
because someone disagreed with another in the marriage foundation that
has gone wrong. Of course, for forty years now, it has been a liberal
democrats goal to always raise taxes in order to support the bigger
socialistic government slowly being created for the population of
America, where the government has control of and payes for everything.
(Remember this on election day).

What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
would have you to believe.

Just remember, CS is NOT for the children, but for the living of the
cp and her wildest dreams in life to live for herself while the
children starve, go unclothed, and beg for anything that they might
need and want. It is a way for the cp to become "dependently
independent", with absolutely NO accountability to anyone, not even
the government or CS agencies like the DAD's out there running amuck
trying to support themselves, their children, and the whims of their
ex spouses lounging around to make a life miserable. Not to mention
being branded and labeled(need I mention how?)

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to
help
our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning above
the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things
would
be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why do
you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human if
they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?

Firstly I'm not being naive. Fairness can be designed into the laws and
guidelines. It's not how it is now, but it CAN be done. I hear you telling
me that this won't work, that nothing works. I hear everyone here whining
about support and aside from a very few people, it's the only thing you seem
to know how to do!

The fact is that whining, and talking destructively about the system and
those who seem to soak it is a huge waste of time. What can you do to fix
it? What would fix it?

Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why? How
would you regulate the amount?

Papa

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to
help
our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning above
the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things
would
be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why do
you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human if
they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?

Firstly I'm not being naive. Fairness can be designed into the laws and
guidelines. It's not how it is now, but it CAN be done. I hear you telling
me that this won't work, that nothing works. I hear everyone here whining
about support and aside from a very few people, it's the only thing you seem
to know how to do!

The fact is that whining, and talking destructively about the system and
those who seem to soak it is a huge waste of time. What can you do to fix
it? What would fix it?

Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why? How
would you regulate the amount?

Papa

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.


That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
mean? Unless I have kids, nothing, it shouldn't mean anything. Marriage,
whether it's roots are finacial or religious is a waste of time, like a
request for approval. I don't think I'll walk that road again. I don't see a
need.

I don't see how someone's commitment or responsibility to pay CS related to
marriage.

Now. For those people who are supporting someone else's kids... Why?

Those mothers who are asking for support for 5 kids by 5 fathers, great! Why
are those fathers causing all this grief for the fathers that are
contributing.

We need the stigma of "deadbeat dad" to fade away. How do we do this? How do
we stop the persecution of those who are good fathers hitting bad times?

Papa

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.


That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
mean? Unless I have kids, nothing, it shouldn't mean anything. Marriage,
whether it's roots are finacial or religious is a waste of time, like a
request for approval. I don't think I'll walk that road again. I don't see a
need.

I don't see how someone's commitment or responsibility to pay CS related to
marriage.

Now. For those people who are supporting someone else's kids... Why?

Those mothers who are asking for support for 5 kids by 5 fathers, great! Why
are those fathers causing all this grief for the fathers that are
contributing.

We need the stigma of "deadbeat dad" to fade away. How do we do this? How do
we stop the persecution of those who are good fathers hitting bad times?

Papa

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
. ..

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.


That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
mean?
===
It depends what state you are in. In PA, common law marriages are recognized
as legally
binding and are subject to legal divorce, spousal and child support, if
applicable. Common
law marriage is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.
===
===

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
. ..

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.


That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
mean?
===
It depends what state you are in. In PA, common law marriages are recognized
as legally
binding and are subject to legal divorce, spousal and child support, if
applicable. Common
law marriage is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.
===
===

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
news

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to
help
our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning
above
the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things
would
be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why
do
you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human
if
they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?

Firstly I'm not being naive. Fairness can be designed into the laws and
guidelines. It's not how it is now, but it CAN be done. I hear you telling
me that this won't work, that nothing works. I hear everyone here whining
about support and aside from a very few people, it's the only thing you
seem
to know how to do!
==
Excuse me? It seems that you are chastizing us for not having the answers to
questions you don't have answers to. What sense does that make?
(More Below)
==
The fact is that whining, and talking destructively about the system and
those who seem to soak it is a huge waste of time. What can you do to fix
it? What would fix it?
==
Actually, this group has been on usenet for years and has been an immense
help to hundreds
of fathers. Many of us have studied family law for years and have a better
knowledge
of the system and state codes than many (if not most) family law attorneys.
Perhaps if it isn't to your liking,
you can move on or direct us to your treasuretrove of wisdom whereby we can
become
enlightened to your solutions to the entire family law system.
==
==

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
news

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to
help
our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning
above
the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things
would
be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why
do
you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human
if
they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?

Firstly I'm not being naive. Fairness can be designed into the laws and
guidelines. It's not how it is now, but it CAN be done. I hear you telling
me that this won't work, that nothing works. I hear everyone here whining
about support and aside from a very few people, it's the only thing you
seem
to know how to do!
==
Excuse me? It seems that you are chastizing us for not having the answers to
questions you don't have answers to. What sense does that make?
(More Below)
==
The fact is that whining, and talking destructively about the system and
those who seem to soak it is a huge waste of time. What can you do to fix
it? What would fix it?
==
Actually, this group has been on usenet for years and has been an immense
help to hundreds
of fathers. Many of us have studied family law for years and have a better
knowledge
of the system and state codes than many (if not most) family law attorneys.
Perhaps if it isn't to your liking,
you can move on or direct us to your treasuretrove of wisdom whereby we can
become
enlightened to your solutions to the entire family law system.
==
==

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
news

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to
help
our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning
above
the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things
would
be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why
do
you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human
if
they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?

Firstly I'm not being naive. Fairness can be designed into the laws and
guidelines. It's not how it is now, but it CAN be done. I hear you telling
me that this won't work, that nothing works. I hear everyone here whining
about support and aside from a very few people, it's the only thing you
seem
to know how to do!

I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the NCP's
entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness can
in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by people
whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone gets
each month.


The fact is that whining, and talking destructively about the system and
those who seem to soak it is a huge waste of time. What can you do to fix
it? What would fix it?

I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the paernts.
I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated that
they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of 95% of
the problems right there.


Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why? How
would you regulate the amount?

Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for the
essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should be
a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep mom
from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.