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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Which is most important?
Which is most important to the government people: keeping a father away from
his child, extorting his money, or putting him in jail? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Which is most important?
"Chris" wrote Which is most important to the government people: keeping a father away from his child, extorting his money, or putting him in jail? == Like you don't know. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Which is most important?
Hello, I just discovered this group so I will try to be polite.
Interesting question. Morally a biological father must financially provide for his kids. If he doesn't there should be the threat of jail as an incentive. If he has a history of violent crime then in some cases a restraining order is necessary. It makes sense to me. Which is most important? Oh this is just my opinion, which could change at any time, and I can't speak for the entire government, but I'd be happy just to see deadbeat dads (the ones who don't even try to support their kids) put in jail. Was there something else you needed? Chris wrote: Which is most important to the government people: keeping a father away from his child, extorting his money, or putting him in jail? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Which is most important?
"djohnson" wrote in message oups.com... Hello, I just discovered this group so I will try to be polite. Interesting question. Morally a biological father must financially provide for his kids. If he doesn't there should be the threat of jail as an incentive. If he has a history of violent crime then in some cases a restraining order is necessary. It makes sense to me. Which is most important? Oh this is just my opinion, which could change at any time, and I can't speak for the entire government, but I'd be happy just to see deadbeat dads (the ones who don't even try to support their kids) put in jail. Was there something else you needed? Pleas describe who you consider to be a deadbeat dad. That would provide us with a foundation for further discussion. Thank you. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Which is most important?
"djohnson" wrote in message
oups.com... Hello, I just discovered this group so I will try to be polite. Interesting question. Morally a biological father must financially provide for his kids. If he doesn't there should be the threat of jail as an incentive. If he has a history of violent crime then in some cases a restraining order is necessary. It makes sense to me. Which is most important? Oh this is just my opinion, which could change at any time, and I can't speak for the entire government, but I'd be happy just to see deadbeat dads (the ones who don't even try to support their kids) put in jail. Was there something else you needed? Morality has nothing to do with it when it comes to government. Is it right for the government (and their employees) to impute income on those who don't make what they think they "should" be able to bring home? Should government impose fines, penalties and fees on those same people it imputes income to when those people can't meet government's demands? Should government be allowed to threaten (and even follow through with) it's people with incarceration for an offence that government created in the first place and thrust upon it's people without their consent? And where does government get the right to decide, without having followed through with required due process, which parent is better then the other and grant said parent sole right to raise a child in whatever fashion they desire while demanding that the other parent be stripped of their assets, finances and their children? None of what we read about divorce is about the health and welfare of our children, it's about money. It's about removing good parents from the lives of their children and replacing them with Nanny GovCo. It's about wealth transfer from one person to another often backed up with the threat of violence and incarceration if compliance is not met. It's about feminist dogma replacing the family as the lynch-pin in our society. And the only way to do that is to demonize the one person that can both hold our families together and keep our children from the clutches of drug abuse, teen pregnancy, suicide and a whole host of depravities.. Fathers. Feminists have been degrading, deriding and outright demonizing fathers and their families for 40 years. Has any of it helped our children? No, it most certainly has not. Instead, the feminists and their ideals have placed them in dire peril and have just about made fatherhood a criminal act. But don't take my word for it - go to NOW's web site and read what they think of men and families for yourself. Then I suggest you take a look at USC Title 42, section 666 and see what the Feds have done to back up the wild, unsupported claims made by the feminists. Then make up your own mind. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Which is most important?
"Dusty" wrote "djohnson" wrote Hello, I just discovered this group so I will try to be polite. Interesting question. Morally a biological father must financially provide for his kids. If he doesn't there should be the threat of jail as an incentive. ..................... Morality has nothing to do with it when it comes to government. ......................................... == He has posted that he's a second husband. That is the perspective from which he views child support. You know, the ones who think the ex owes them a standard of living and should expose every dime he earns. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Which is most important?
First of all I take your word for what you are saying. It all sounds
reasonable. I just don't have the same analysis. Dusty wrote: "djohnson" wrote in message oups.com... Hello, I just discovered this group so I will try to be polite. Interesting question. Morally a biological father must financially provide for his kids. If he doesn't there should be the threat of jail as an incentive. If he has a history of violent crime then in some cases a restraining order is necessary. It makes sense to me. Which is most important? Oh this is just my opinion, which could change at any time, and I can't speak for the entire government, but I'd be happy just to see deadbeat dads (the ones who don't even try to support their kids) put in jail. Was there something else you needed? Morality has nothing to do with it when it comes to government. Is it right for the government (and their employees) to impute income on those who don't make what they think they "should" be able to bring home? Well as in the Murtari case $120 a week seems reasonable to expect. Even a minimum wage job would be enough to pay that. Yes the father has to make sacrifices. Do you think I enjoy having to pay $150 in school fees tommorow for my stepkid, while I can't afford a tune up on my car? Meanwhile the biological father is spending his money at strip clubs. I'm not saying this is typical of divorced fathers, but it is what the law tries to prevent. Should government impose fines, penalties and fees on those same people it imputes income to when those people can't meet government's demands? I agree that adding fines on when the individual obvious is low on money seems unfair. The same thing occurs with other bills though like credit cards and such; it's one of those things that's wrong all around, not just in child support. Should government be allowed to threaten (and even follow through with) it's people with incarceration for an offence that government created in the first place and thrust upon it's people without their consent? Yes. That's why I try to obey the law. And where does government get the right to decide, without having followed through with required due process, which parent is better then the other and grant said parent sole right to raise a child in whatever fashion they desire while demanding that the other parent be stripped of their assets, finances and their children? Children strip every parent of their assets. That's what kids do. Why should some other guy have to pay for someone else's kid? If society were like that we would have to types of guys, the ones who pay and the ones who play. I'd be the former type of guy. None of what we read about divorce is about the health and welfare of our children, it's about money. It's about removing good parents from the lives of their children and replacing them with Nanny GovCo. It's about wealth transfer from one person to another often backed up with the threat of violence and incarceration if compliance is not met. It's about feminist dogma replacing the family as the lynch-pin in our society. And the only way to do that is to demonize the one person that can both hold our families together and keep our children from the clutches of drug abuse, teen pregnancy, suicide and a whole host of depravities.. Fathers. Feminists have been degrading, deriding and outright demonizing fathers and their families for 40 years. Has any of it helped our children? No, it most certainly has not. Instead, the feminists and their ideals have placed them in dire peril and have just about made fatherhood a criminal act. But don't take my word for it - go to NOW's web site and read what they think of men and families for yourself. Then I suggest you take a look at USC Title 42, section 666 and see what the Feds have done to back up the wild, unsupported claims made by the feminists. Then make up your own mind. Again I take your work for it. As far as the sexual discrimination goes, I know it's there. I can't explain it. I have my own opinions about the sexes. I treat women better than I treat men. I give a woman my seat on the train, I work more than my wife, spend less than her, I try not to argue with women, and I don't complain about it. I was raised to think a man has obligation and should not complain if he gets the short end of the stick. That's just me. I mean, how can you expect a woman to pay child support when a woman, say for instance, gets pregnant? That may have something to do with it. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Which is most important?
Gini wrote: "Dusty" wrote "djohnson" wrote Hello, I just discovered this group so I will try to be polite. Interesting question. Morally a biological father must financially provide for his kids. If he doesn't there should be the threat of jail as an incentive. .................... Morality has nothing to do with it when it comes to government. ........................................ == He has posted that he's a second husband. That is the perspective from which he views child support. You know, the ones who think the ex owes them a standard of living and should expose every dime he earns. I agree, and the same should go for the biological father. My income is all exposed to the government unlike my wife's ex who only works under the counter to avoid paying child support. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Which is most important?
"djohnson" wrote ................................ Well as in the Murtari case $120 a week seems reasonable to expect. == Really? That means that 240. a week should be spent on the child given the CP's share. == Even a minimum wage job would be enough to pay that. == Surely you jest. You didn't think think through very well, did you? You do realize that the NCP must also survive? == Yes the father has to make sacrifices. == Hopefully, leaving the mother to live in leisure? == Do you think I enjoy having to pay $150 in school fees tommorow for my stepkid, == That's pretty steep and appears you are squandering money and living beyond your means. The NCP is not responsible for your poor spending habits or your auto repairs. You are living beyond your means and expecting the ex to fund you. It appears you haven't a clue how child support is supposed to be used and what it is intended for. == |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Which is most important?
"djohnson" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "djohnson" wrote in message oups.com... Hello, I just discovered this group so I will try to be polite. Interesting question. Morally a biological father must financially provide for his kids. If he doesn't there should be the threat of jail as an incentive. If he has a history of violent crime then in some cases a restraining order is necessary. It makes sense to me. Which is most important? Oh this is just my opinion, which could change at any time, and I can't speak for the entire government, but I'd be happy just to see deadbeat dads (the ones who don't even try to support their kids) put in jail. Was there something else you needed? Pleas describe who you consider to be a deadbeat dad. That would provide us with a foundation for further discussion. Thank you. A parent who provides their kids with no significant amount of money to support their needs such as a roof over their head, food, school expenses, medical care, etc etc etc. Perfect description for a parent on welfare. Zero financial contribution to the children while relying on the government to provide housing, food stamps, public education with free meals including during Summers, and state Medicaid/health plan coverage. Lock 'em up! Or do you mean only fathers can be deadbeats? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How Important is Consistency for Children? | Thom | Foster Parents | 0 | October 20th 05 10:11 AM |
Doug unzips and exposes himself. | Kane | General | 0 | April 10th 04 03:18 AM |
Doug unzips and exposes himself. | Kane | Spanking | 0 | April 10th 04 03:18 AM |
Doug unzips and exposes himself. | Kane | Foster Parents | 0 | April 10th 04 03:18 AM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |