CS related licene suspension question...

"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
Dave the wave wrote:
My experience:
My LLGB decided that because I once earned $X/week working as an
independent contractor on a job that lasted 4 to 5 weeks, that I
should be held to an earning capacity that was 52 x $X? (Never mind
that unlike a fulltime employee I don't get vacation/personal paid
leave or that I have to pay for my benefits and additional
self-employment taxes.) I tried to explain this and other details
(like this job was a explicitly temporary assignment that I may never
get to do again, and that if they were to hire me fulltime it would
not be for the same money) about being a independent contractor. My
LLGB just looked at me like I was speaking Hebrew. Needless to say,
my CS was calculated based on an income that I only wished I had been
able to earn over the 3 years it was enforced.

What does "LLGB" stand for?

It gets better. My X lucks into this fab 2nd mortgage lending job and
starts to make serious money. Is she happy then? Nope. Back to
mediation we go. Now my CS is not only calculated on an income level
I've NEVER achieved, but because the X is making more money the total
CS goes significantly higher therefore I have to pay MUCH more
CS????? To make matters worse she acts like I don't support the kids.
She just bought a $150,000 townhome, but she told the LLGB that she
couldn't afford to buy our son a pair of shoes or clothes.

Explain this. Why would CS go up if she now makes more money?

remainder snipped

--
Always borrow money from a pessimist, he doesn't expect to be paid back.
~Author Unknown

1. LLGB = Low Level Government beaurecrat
2. In my state the total CS is calculated as a percentage of combined
income. Then the total CS is multiplied by the ratio: (my salary)/(our
combined salaries). Upon further reflection, I'm not sure if this is why my
support went up. Since my CS rate is a percentage based on my salary to
hers, provided the factor used to determine the total CS doesn't change much
as you move up the pay scale, I think -mathematically speaking- the increase
in CS due to her increased income would be offset by the decrease in my
percentage of the total. I am going to get out my calculator and run some
actual figures to see what the truth is. There were at least 2 mistakes on
my CS order that I caught. My X's income was understated and my income
potential was overstated. I informed my lawyer and her reply was that my X's
income would be corrected, but I would have to file an appeal to get mine
changed. I think it amounted to $20 a month in increased payments from me.
Hardly worth the several hundred it would cost me to even file an appeal. My
lawyer also said my chances of winning ANY appeal were very slim. The judges
do not look favorably upon people trying to lower their CS. Another reason
for not appealing is the LLGB could make up any reason she wanted for
increasing my earnings potential. It was an arbitrary number to begin with.
--
from Dave the wave

^^^^^^\________

--




"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
nk.net...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om...
"Pamela" wrote in message
thlink.net...

[snip]

Amusing......hmmmm. Because your ex seems to have dropped the
ball,
you would find it "amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

You know I never said that.

And, then Dusty said:


Indeed you did say that Pam. Here's what you wrote: "I never respond
to
this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a person's license for
failure to provide for his children is extreme."

Holy Cripe. You either cannot read or cannot comprehend what you read.
Let's take it slowly

Statement 1 by Pamela

"I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a
person's
license for failure to provide for his children is extreme."

Read it. I'll wait. OK, let's take it apart and see if we can
understand it. This is the sentence you utilized as proof that I said
that I would, as posited by Teachermama:

find it "amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

Please note that nowhere in this statement, that you utilized as proof
of MT's accusation, is a reference to amusement related to the taking
away of a NCP's license who had lost a job, fallen into arrears, or
become ill. SEE? What I did say, and never said I did not say was
that I did not think the taking away of a license of a PERSON who DID
NOT PROVIDE for his children to be an extreme act. I stand by that
statement. There are many ways to provide for one's children. Never
did I say if a person did not pay exactly what the court ordered in $
should that person lose their license. Shall we go on?
..

Dusty goes on:

Only in the second sentence do you mention your X. So, it's
impossible to
equate that you where talking about your X in the first sentence
because
he's not even mentioned!

Please see the statement you refer to below. And, what is your
question? It doesn't relate, since we have already disproved your first
comment. Statement 2 makes neither a case for or against the taking of
licenses. Shall we move on?

Statement 2 by Pamela

I have an ex who has not paid child support for years, may see his
daughter
whenever he wants, makes a great income, and cheats and steals his way
through life.

Back to Dusty's rhetoric:

And in the third sentence you state that you'd be amused to give him
such a
wake-up call.. "I have an ex who has not paid child support for years,
may
see his daughter whenever he wants, makes a great income, and cheats
and
steals his way through life. Taking his driver's license away seems a
rather amusing way to wake him up. More I think about it, the more I
like
it."

Statement 3 by Pamela

"Taking his driver's license away seems a rather amusing way to wake him
up.
More I think about it, the more I like it:".


Your absolutely correct here. Statement 3 says exactly what you say it
says. That it seems rather an amusing way to wake MY ex up. It says
nothing about my wanting or agreeing to take licenses away from, in Miss
TeacherMama's accusation( and, her quote directly below this statement)
and your agreement with that accusation, :

NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

Shall we move forward?

Pamela responding to TM:

Here is the interesting thing. You folks who
have an issue with child support seem to want to put words in the
mouths
of
other's. Now, that's pretty easy to do when the arguments are oral,
but
these are written, so how is it you think it makes sense to alter
what a
person says when what they said is right there to be read. READ IT
AGAIN.

Dusty SAYS:

I did. I also found you to be at fault for attempting to change the
use of
proper sentence structure and for attempting to turn back time. Pam,
you
did say those things. Hell, you WROTE them.


Nothing to discuss here, correct? We now are quite clear on exactly
what I wrote, but just to help you along I'll repeat them:

Statement 1 by Pamela

"I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a
person's
license for failure to provide for his children is extreme".

This statement says clearly that I do not think taking a person's
license for failure to PROVIDE FOR his children is extreme. Nowhere
does it say that I find it , and once again, here is your and Teacher
Mama's accusation:

"amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

Do you see that? If you, or TeacherMama, or anyone else, see anywhere
in my statement the words - ill, arrears, lost, jobs, or fallen - then,
well, all I can say is Gee, I am sorry for your comprehension issues.

Onward:


Pamela:

I WAS SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HIM.

Dusty says:

No you where not - you pointed to your X -AFTER- making the statement
"..I
don't think taking a person's license for failure to provide for his
children is extreme." After that point on you may have been speaking
of
him, but not in the very first line.


Ok, by now it should be clear to you that statements 1, 2, and 3, the
ones that you refer to specifically address this and prove you to be
incorrect. Let's not belabor the truth. Any opposition to this would
make you look silly, so I am sure you won't go there.

That my dear, was a very broad generalization to all NCPs on your
part. And
because of that generalization, it can be argued that you lumped all
NCP's
in with your X. Therefore, they should all lose their DL and it
amused you
to think of such a thing happening.

That is, of course, an extrapolation on your part. No where, at any
time, did I say or infer what you are accusing me of. It's plain silly.
It an attack with no merit.


You must be related to John "Flip-flop" Kerry. First you did, then
you
didn't. "I voted for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it."
Come on
Pam, get with the program.

First I didn't, then I didn't. But, that has been proven. Clearly.

Continuing on:


What I neglected to say was that while he can see her whenever he
wants,
he never bothers to take that option. But, back to you. Right below
that
you posted this in response. Ready? ok, here goes again: This is
you
responding:

Amusing......hmmmm. Because your ex seems to have dropped the ball,
you would find it "amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.


Dusty takes his major leap:


And now that we all know you where amused at the idea of NCPs loosing
their
drivers licenses Pam.


Of course no one knows that. And, you also know it isn't true.

Let's keep moving on this very boring and repetitive lane you have
created:

Pamela to TM:

Now that what I said is clear and what you responded is clear, let
me ask
the question: why did you state I said something I never said.
What I
said
was very clear. In fact, in another post I said exactly the
opposite of
what you accused me of saying. I said that a reason for not paying
child
support would be: PHYSICAL ILLNESS PREVENTING A PERSON FROM WORKING
and/or
MENTAL ILLNESS PREVENTING A PERSON FROM WORKING. But, let me repost
that
for you as well, since you seem to have a problem in attribution:

Here was the question:

What would be a reasonable excuse, in your opinion, for not paying?

Pamela

then Dusty responded:

I asked first


Then I responded:

Ok.

1. Mental illness which prevented a person from working.
2. Physical illness which prevented a person from working.


Dusty chimes in:


Actually Pam, there's a bit you left out. Here's what you said in
it's
entirety:

"1. Mental illness which prevented a person from working.
2. Physical illness which prevented a person from working.

I can't think of anything else."


Indeed, that is what I said. Keep scrolling.

Pamela to TM:

See that? So, I stated exactly the opposite of what you accused me
of
stating. So, why did you do that? Really. What were you
attempting to
do,
other than make yourself look silly?

Dusty said, in his most condescending way:


Pam, Pammy, Pamela... You very clearly state that -only- a mental or
physical illness would be grounds to forgive non-payment of CS.
Because you
where responding to my question of: "And when they can't pay, what
then? Is
it to be "To bad, so sad, you loose"?"

I clearly did state 1 and 2. I never said I didn't state them. I also
said I couldn't think of anything else. The question was "what would be
a reasonable reason for not paying". That is what I consider a
reasonable reason for not paying. The question was not what would be a
reasonable reason for taking a driver's license. Stay on task, here.


Dusty draws further conclusions with no basis in fact:


And in answer to my questions you imply that any reason, other then an
illness of some sort, places every NCP into the "to-bad, so-sad, you
loose"
category. Because, as you so eloquently state in your last line: "I
can't
think of anything else."

I don't imply anything. You project meaning on to my words. What
causes you to do that? If you didn't understand you could have simply
asked. I couldn't think of anything else. That's reason for being
nailed to a cross, called a bitch, a man-hater, and every other
explicitive you guys have managed to dredge up? wow.

[major snippage of Pam's attempted psycho-babble and lawyer-drivel]

Jealous of my ability to communicate logically, huh?


Pam, face it, you've been caught with you pants down. Again.

Guess not. But, your effort was AMUSING.

Pamela

--




"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
nk.net...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om...
"Pamela" wrote in message
thlink.net...

[snip]

Amusing......hmmmm. Because your ex seems to have dropped the
ball,
you would find it "amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

You know I never said that.

And, then Dusty said:


Indeed you did say that Pam. Here's what you wrote: "I never respond
to
this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a person's license for
failure to provide for his children is extreme."

Holy Cripe. You either cannot read or cannot comprehend what you read.
Let's take it slowly

Statement 1 by Pamela

"I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a
person's
license for failure to provide for his children is extreme."

Read it. I'll wait. OK, let's take it apart and see if we can
understand it. This is the sentence you utilized as proof that I said
that I would, as posited by Teachermama:

find it "amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

Please note that nowhere in this statement, that you utilized as proof
of MT's accusation, is a reference to amusement related to the taking
away of a NCP's license who had lost a job, fallen into arrears, or
become ill. SEE? What I did say, and never said I did not say was
that I did not think the taking away of a license of a PERSON who DID
NOT PROVIDE for his children to be an extreme act. I stand by that
statement. There are many ways to provide for one's children. Never
did I say if a person did not pay exactly what the court ordered in $
should that person lose their license. Shall we go on?
..

Dusty goes on:

Only in the second sentence do you mention your X. So, it's
impossible to
equate that you where talking about your X in the first sentence
because
he's not even mentioned!

Please see the statement you refer to below. And, what is your
question? It doesn't relate, since we have already disproved your first
comment. Statement 2 makes neither a case for or against the taking of
licenses. Shall we move on?

Statement 2 by Pamela

I have an ex who has not paid child support for years, may see his
daughter
whenever he wants, makes a great income, and cheats and steals his way
through life.

Back to Dusty's rhetoric:

And in the third sentence you state that you'd be amused to give him
such a
wake-up call.. "I have an ex who has not paid child support for years,
may
see his daughter whenever he wants, makes a great income, and cheats
and
steals his way through life. Taking his driver's license away seems a
rather amusing way to wake him up. More I think about it, the more I
like
it."

Statement 3 by Pamela

"Taking his driver's license away seems a rather amusing way to wake him
up.
More I think about it, the more I like it:".


Your absolutely correct here. Statement 3 says exactly what you say it
says. That it seems rather an amusing way to wake MY ex up. It says
nothing about my wanting or agreeing to take licenses away from, in Miss
TeacherMama's accusation( and, her quote directly below this statement)
and your agreement with that accusation, :

NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

Shall we move forward?

Pamela responding to TM:

Here is the interesting thing. You folks who
have an issue with child support seem to want to put words in the
mouths
of
other's. Now, that's pretty easy to do when the arguments are oral,
but
these are written, so how is it you think it makes sense to alter
what a
person says when what they said is right there to be read. READ IT
AGAIN.

Dusty SAYS:

I did. I also found you to be at fault for attempting to change the
use of
proper sentence structure and for attempting to turn back time. Pam,
you
did say those things. Hell, you WROTE them.


Nothing to discuss here, correct? We now are quite clear on exactly
what I wrote, but just to help you along I'll repeat them:

Statement 1 by Pamela

"I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a
person's
license for failure to provide for his children is extreme".

This statement says clearly that I do not think taking a person's
license for failure to PROVIDE FOR his children is extreme. Nowhere
does it say that I find it , and once again, here is your and Teacher
Mama's accusation:

"amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

Do you see that? If you, or TeacherMama, or anyone else, see anywhere
in my statement the words - ill, arrears, lost, jobs, or fallen - then,
well, all I can say is Gee, I am sorry for your comprehension issues.

Onward:


Pamela:

I WAS SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HIM.

Dusty says:

No you where not - you pointed to your X -AFTER- making the statement
"..I
don't think taking a person's license for failure to provide for his
children is extreme." After that point on you may have been speaking
of
him, but not in the very first line.


Ok, by now it should be clear to you that statements 1, 2, and 3, the
ones that you refer to specifically address this and prove you to be
incorrect. Let's not belabor the truth. Any opposition to this would
make you look silly, so I am sure you won't go there.

That my dear, was a very broad generalization to all NCPs on your
part. And
because of that generalization, it can be argued that you lumped all
NCP's
in with your X. Therefore, they should all lose their DL and it
amused you
to think of such a thing happening.

That is, of course, an extrapolation on your part. No where, at any
time, did I say or infer what you are accusing me of. It's plain silly.
It an attack with no merit.


You must be related to John "Flip-flop" Kerry. First you did, then
you
didn't. "I voted for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it."
Come on
Pam, get with the program.

First I didn't, then I didn't. But, that has been proven. Clearly.

Continuing on:


What I neglected to say was that while he can see her whenever he
wants,
he never bothers to take that option. But, back to you. Right below
that
you posted this in response. Ready? ok, here goes again: This is
you
responding:

Amusing......hmmmm. Because your ex seems to have dropped the ball,
you would find it "amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.


Dusty takes his major leap:


And now that we all know you where amused at the idea of NCPs loosing
their
drivers licenses Pam.


Of course no one knows that. And, you also know it isn't true.

Let's keep moving on this very boring and repetitive lane you have
created:

Pamela to TM:

Now that what I said is clear and what you responded is clear, let
me ask
the question: why did you state I said something I never said.
What I
said
was very clear. In fact, in another post I said exactly the
opposite of
what you accused me of saying. I said that a reason for not paying
child
support would be: PHYSICAL ILLNESS PREVENTING A PERSON FROM WORKING
and/or
MENTAL ILLNESS PREVENTING A PERSON FROM WORKING. But, let me repost
that
for you as well, since you seem to have a problem in attribution:

Here was the question:

What would be a reasonable excuse, in your opinion, for not paying?

Pamela

then Dusty responded:

I asked first


Then I responded:

Ok.

1. Mental illness which prevented a person from working.
2. Physical illness which prevented a person from working.


Dusty chimes in:


Actually Pam, there's a bit you left out. Here's what you said in
it's
entirety:

"1. Mental illness which prevented a person from working.
2. Physical illness which prevented a person from working.

I can't think of anything else."


Indeed, that is what I said. Keep scrolling.

Pamela to TM:

See that? So, I stated exactly the opposite of what you accused me
of
stating. So, why did you do that? Really. What were you
attempting to
do,
other than make yourself look silly?

Dusty said, in his most condescending way:


Pam, Pammy, Pamela... You very clearly state that -only- a mental or
physical illness would be grounds to forgive non-payment of CS.
Because you
where responding to my question of: "And when they can't pay, what
then? Is
it to be "To bad, so sad, you loose"?"

I clearly did state 1 and 2. I never said I didn't state them. I also
said I couldn't think of anything else. The question was "what would be
a reasonable reason for not paying". That is what I consider a
reasonable reason for not paying. The question was not what would be a
reasonable reason for taking a driver's license. Stay on task, here.


Dusty draws further conclusions with no basis in fact:


And in answer to my questions you imply that any reason, other then an
illness of some sort, places every NCP into the "to-bad, so-sad, you
loose"
category. Because, as you so eloquently state in your last line: "I
can't
think of anything else."

I don't imply anything. You project meaning on to my words. What
causes you to do that? If you didn't understand you could have simply
asked. I couldn't think of anything else. That's reason for being
nailed to a cross, called a bitch, a man-hater, and every other
explicitive you guys have managed to dredge up? wow.

[major snippage of Pam's attempted psycho-babble and lawyer-drivel]

Jealous of my ability to communicate logically, huh?


Pam, face it, you've been caught with you pants down. Again.

Guess not. But, your effort was AMUSING.

Pamela

--




"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
nk.net...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om...
"Pamela" wrote in message
thlink.net...

[snip]

Amusing......hmmmm. Because your ex seems to have dropped the
ball,
you would find it "amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

You know I never said that.

And, then Dusty said:


Indeed you did say that Pam. Here's what you wrote: "I never respond
to
this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a person's license for
failure to provide for his children is extreme."

Holy Cripe. You either cannot read or cannot comprehend what you read.
Let's take it slowly

Statement 1 by Pamela

"I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a
person's
license for failure to provide for his children is extreme."

Read it. I'll wait. OK, let's take it apart and see if we can
understand it. This is the sentence you utilized as proof that I said
that I would, as posited by Teachermama:

find it "amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

Please note that nowhere in this statement, that you utilized as proof
of MT's accusation, is a reference to amusement related to the taking
away of a NCP's license who had lost a job, fallen into arrears, or
become ill. SEE? What I did say, and never said I did not say was
that I did not think the taking away of a license of a PERSON who DID
NOT PROVIDE for his children to be an extreme act. I stand by that
statement. There are many ways to provide for one's children. Never
did I say if a person did not pay exactly what the court ordered in $
should that person lose their license. Shall we go on?
..

Dusty goes on:

Only in the second sentence do you mention your X. So, it's
impossible to
equate that you where talking about your X in the first sentence
because
he's not even mentioned!

Please see the statement you refer to below. And, what is your
question? It doesn't relate, since we have already disproved your first
comment. Statement 2 makes neither a case for or against the taking of
licenses. Shall we move on?

Statement 2 by Pamela

I have an ex who has not paid child support for years, may see his
daughter
whenever he wants, makes a great income, and cheats and steals his way
through life.

Back to Dusty's rhetoric:

And in the third sentence you state that you'd be amused to give him
such a
wake-up call.. "I have an ex who has not paid child support for years,
may
see his daughter whenever he wants, makes a great income, and cheats
and
steals his way through life. Taking his driver's license away seems a
rather amusing way to wake him up. More I think about it, the more I
like
it."

Statement 3 by Pamela

"Taking his driver's license away seems a rather amusing way to wake him
up.
More I think about it, the more I like it:".


Your absolutely correct here. Statement 3 says exactly what you say it
says. That it seems rather an amusing way to wake MY ex up. It says
nothing about my wanting or agreeing to take licenses away from, in Miss
TeacherMama's accusation( and, her quote directly below this statement)
and your agreement with that accusation, :

NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

Shall we move forward?

Pamela responding to TM:

Here is the interesting thing. You folks who
have an issue with child support seem to want to put words in the
mouths
of
other's. Now, that's pretty easy to do when the arguments are oral,
but
these are written, so how is it you think it makes sense to alter
what a
person says when what they said is right there to be read. READ IT
AGAIN.

Dusty SAYS:

I did. I also found you to be at fault for attempting to change the
use of
proper sentence structure and for attempting to turn back time. Pam,
you
did say those things. Hell, you WROTE them.


Nothing to discuss here, correct? We now are quite clear on exactly
what I wrote, but just to help you along I'll repeat them:

Statement 1 by Pamela

"I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a
person's
license for failure to provide for his children is extreme".

This statement says clearly that I do not think taking a person's
license for failure to PROVIDE FOR his children is extreme. Nowhere
does it say that I find it , and once again, here is your and Teacher
Mama's accusation:

"amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

Do you see that? If you, or TeacherMama, or anyone else, see anywhere
in my statement the words - ill, arrears, lost, jobs, or fallen - then,
well, all I can say is Gee, I am sorry for your comprehension issues.

Onward:


Pamela:

I WAS SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HIM.

Dusty says:

No you where not - you pointed to your X -AFTER- making the statement
"..I
don't think taking a person's license for failure to provide for his
children is extreme." After that point on you may have been speaking
of
him, but not in the very first line.


Ok, by now it should be clear to you that statements 1, 2, and 3, the
ones that you refer to specifically address this and prove you to be
incorrect. Let's not belabor the truth. Any opposition to this would
make you look silly, so I am sure you won't go there.

That my dear, was a very broad generalization to all NCPs on your
part. And
because of that generalization, it can be argued that you lumped all
NCP's
in with your X. Therefore, they should all lose their DL and it
amused you
to think of such a thing happening.

That is, of course, an extrapolation on your part. No where, at any
time, did I say or infer what you are accusing me of. It's plain silly.
It an attack with no merit.


You must be related to John "Flip-flop" Kerry. First you did, then
you
didn't. "I voted for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it."
Come on
Pam, get with the program.

First I didn't, then I didn't. But, that has been proven. Clearly.

Continuing on:


What I neglected to say was that while he can see her whenever he
wants,
he never bothers to take that option. But, back to you. Right below
that
you posted this in response. Ready? ok, here goes again: This is
you
responding:

Amusing......hmmmm. Because your ex seems to have dropped the ball,
you would find it "amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.


Dusty takes his major leap:


And now that we all know you where amused at the idea of NCPs loosing
their
drivers licenses Pam.


Of course no one knows that. And, you also know it isn't true.

Let's keep moving on this very boring and repetitive lane you have
created:

Pamela to TM:

Now that what I said is clear and what you responded is clear, let
me ask
the question: why did you state I said something I never said.
What I
said
was very clear. In fact, in another post I said exactly the
opposite of
what you accused me of saying. I said that a reason for not paying
child
support would be: PHYSICAL ILLNESS PREVENTING A PERSON FROM WORKING
and/or
MENTAL ILLNESS PREVENTING A PERSON FROM WORKING. But, let me repost
that
for you as well, since you seem to have a problem in attribution:

Here was the question:

What would be a reasonable excuse, in your opinion, for not paying?

Pamela

then Dusty responded:

I asked first


Then I responded:

Ok.

1. Mental illness which prevented a person from working.
2. Physical illness which prevented a person from working.


Dusty chimes in:


Actually Pam, there's a bit you left out. Here's what you said in
it's
entirety:

"1. Mental illness which prevented a person from working.
2. Physical illness which prevented a person from working.

I can't think of anything else."


Indeed, that is what I said. Keep scrolling.

Pamela to TM:

See that? So, I stated exactly the opposite of what you accused me
of
stating. So, why did you do that? Really. What were you
attempting to
do,
other than make yourself look silly?

Dusty said, in his most condescending way:


Pam, Pammy, Pamela... You very clearly state that -only- a mental or
physical illness would be grounds to forgive non-payment of CS.
Because you
where responding to my question of: "And when they can't pay, what
then? Is
it to be "To bad, so sad, you loose"?"

I clearly did state 1 and 2. I never said I didn't state them. I also
said I couldn't think of anything else. The question was "what would be
a reasonable reason for not paying". That is what I consider a
reasonable reason for not paying. The question was not what would be a
reasonable reason for taking a driver's license. Stay on task, here.


Dusty draws further conclusions with no basis in fact:


And in answer to my questions you imply that any reason, other then an
illness of some sort, places every NCP into the "to-bad, so-sad, you
loose"
category. Because, as you so eloquently state in your last line: "I
can't
think of anything else."

I don't imply anything. You project meaning on to my words. What
causes you to do that? If you didn't understand you could have simply
asked. I couldn't think of anything else. That's reason for being
nailed to a cross, called a bitch, a man-hater, and every other
explicitive you guys have managed to dredge up? wow.

[major snippage of Pam's attempted psycho-babble and lawyer-drivel]

Jealous of my ability to communicate logically, huh?


Pam, face it, you've been caught with you pants down. Again.

Guess not. But, your effort was AMUSING.

Pamela

--




"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
nk.net...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om...
"Pamela" wrote in message
thlink.net...

[snip]

Amusing......hmmmm. Because your ex seems to have dropped the
ball,
you would find it "amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

You know I never said that.

And, then Dusty said:


Indeed you did say that Pam. Here's what you wrote: "I never respond
to
this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a person's license for
failure to provide for his children is extreme."

Holy Cripe. You either cannot read or cannot comprehend what you read.
Let's take it slowly

Statement 1 by Pamela

"I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a
person's
license for failure to provide for his children is extreme."

Read it. I'll wait. OK, let's take it apart and see if we can
understand it. This is the sentence you utilized as proof that I said
that I would, as posited by Teachermama:

find it "amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

Please note that nowhere in this statement, that you utilized as proof
of MT's accusation, is a reference to amusement related to the taking
away of a NCP's license who had lost a job, fallen into arrears, or
become ill. SEE? What I did say, and never said I did not say was
that I did not think the taking away of a license of a PERSON who DID
NOT PROVIDE for his children to be an extreme act. I stand by that
statement. There are many ways to provide for one's children. Never
did I say if a person did not pay exactly what the court ordered in $
should that person lose their license. Shall we go on?
..

Dusty goes on:

Only in the second sentence do you mention your X. So, it's
impossible to
equate that you where talking about your X in the first sentence
because
he's not even mentioned!

Please see the statement you refer to below. And, what is your
question? It doesn't relate, since we have already disproved your first
comment. Statement 2 makes neither a case for or against the taking of
licenses. Shall we move on?

Statement 2 by Pamela

I have an ex who has not paid child support for years, may see his
daughter
whenever he wants, makes a great income, and cheats and steals his way
through life.

Back to Dusty's rhetoric:

And in the third sentence you state that you'd be amused to give him
such a
wake-up call.. "I have an ex who has not paid child support for years,
may
see his daughter whenever he wants, makes a great income, and cheats
and
steals his way through life. Taking his driver's license away seems a
rather amusing way to wake him up. More I think about it, the more I
like
it."

Statement 3 by Pamela

"Taking his driver's license away seems a rather amusing way to wake him
up.
More I think about it, the more I like it:".


Your absolutely correct here. Statement 3 says exactly what you say it
says. That it seems rather an amusing way to wake MY ex up. It says
nothing about my wanting or agreeing to take licenses away from, in Miss
TeacherMama's accusation( and, her quote directly below this statement)
and your agreement with that accusation, :

NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

Shall we move forward?

Pamela responding to TM:

Here is the interesting thing. You folks who
have an issue with child support seem to want to put words in the
mouths
of
other's. Now, that's pretty easy to do when the arguments are oral,
but
these are written, so how is it you think it makes sense to alter
what a
person says when what they said is right there to be read. READ IT
AGAIN.

Dusty SAYS:

I did. I also found you to be at fault for attempting to change the
use of
proper sentence structure and for attempting to turn back time. Pam,
you
did say those things. Hell, you WROTE them.


Nothing to discuss here, correct? We now are quite clear on exactly
what I wrote, but just to help you along I'll repeat them:

Statement 1 by Pamela

"I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a
person's
license for failure to provide for his children is extreme".

This statement says clearly that I do not think taking a person's
license for failure to PROVIDE FOR his children is extreme. Nowhere
does it say that I find it , and once again, here is your and Teacher
Mama's accusation:

"amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.

Do you see that? If you, or TeacherMama, or anyone else, see anywhere
in my statement the words - ill, arrears, lost, jobs, or fallen - then,
well, all I can say is Gee, I am sorry for your comprehension issues.

Onward:


Pamela:

I WAS SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HIM.

Dusty says:

No you where not - you pointed to your X -AFTER- making the statement
"..I
don't think taking a person's license for failure to provide for his
children is extreme." After that point on you may have been speaking
of
him, but not in the very first line.


Ok, by now it should be clear to you that statements 1, 2, and 3, the
ones that you refer to specifically address this and prove you to be
incorrect. Let's not belabor the truth. Any opposition to this would
make you look silly, so I am sure you won't go there.

That my dear, was a very broad generalization to all NCPs on your
part. And
because of that generalization, it can be argued that you lumped all
NCP's
in with your X. Therefore, they should all lose their DL and it
amused you
to think of such a thing happening.

That is, of course, an extrapolation on your part. No where, at any
time, did I say or infer what you are accusing me of. It's plain silly.
It an attack with no merit.


You must be related to John "Flip-flop" Kerry. First you did, then
you
didn't. "I voted for the $87 Billion, before I voted against it."
Come on
Pam, get with the program.

First I didn't, then I didn't. But, that has been proven. Clearly.

Continuing on:


What I neglected to say was that while he can see her whenever he
wants,
he never bothers to take that option. But, back to you. Right below
that
you posted this in response. Ready? ok, here goes again: This is
you
responding:

Amusing......hmmmm. Because your ex seems to have dropped the ball,
you would find it "amusing" for NCPs who have lost their jobs and
fallen into arrears, or become ill and fallen into arrears, to
have
their licenses pulled.


Dusty takes his major leap:


And now that we all know you where amused at the idea of NCPs loosing
their
drivers licenses Pam.


Of course no one knows that. And, you also know it isn't true.

Let's keep moving on this very boring and repetitive lane you have
created:

Pamela to TM:

Now that what I said is clear and what you responded is clear, let
me ask
the question: why did you state I said something I never said.
What I
said
was very clear. In fact, in another post I said exactly the
opposite of
what you accused me of saying. I said that a reason for not paying
child
support would be: PHYSICAL ILLNESS PREVENTING A PERSON FROM WORKING
and/or
MENTAL ILLNESS PREVENTING A PERSON FROM WORKING. But, let me repost
that
for you as well, since you seem to have a problem in attribution:

Here was the question:

What would be a reasonable excuse, in your opinion, for not paying?

Pamela

then Dusty responded:

I asked first


Then I responded:

Ok.

1. Mental illness which prevented a person from working.
2. Physical illness which prevented a person from working.


Dusty chimes in:


Actually Pam, there's a bit you left out. Here's what you said in
it's
entirety:

"1. Mental illness which prevented a person from working.
2. Physical illness which prevented a person from working.

I can't think of anything else."


Indeed, that is what I said. Keep scrolling.

Pamela to TM:

See that? So, I stated exactly the opposite of what you accused me
of
stating. So, why did you do that? Really. What were you
attempting to
do,
other than make yourself look silly?

Dusty said, in his most condescending way:


Pam, Pammy, Pamela... You very clearly state that -only- a mental or
physical illness would be grounds to forgive non-payment of CS.
Because you
where responding to my question of: "And when they can't pay, what
then? Is
it to be "To bad, so sad, you loose"?"

I clearly did state 1 and 2. I never said I didn't state them. I also
said I couldn't think of anything else. The question was "what would be
a reasonable reason for not paying". That is what I consider a
reasonable reason for not paying. The question was not what would be a
reasonable reason for taking a driver's license. Stay on task, here.


Dusty draws further conclusions with no basis in fact:


And in answer to my questions you imply that any reason, other then an
illness of some sort, places every NCP into the "to-bad, so-sad, you
loose"
category. Because, as you so eloquently state in your last line: "I
can't
think of anything else."

I don't imply anything. You project meaning on to my words. What
causes you to do that? If you didn't understand you could have simply
asked. I couldn't think of anything else. That's reason for being
nailed to a cross, called a bitch, a man-hater, and every other
explicitive you guys have managed to dredge up? wow.

[major snippage of Pam's attempted psycho-babble and lawyer-drivel]

Jealous of my ability to communicate logically, huh?


Pam, face it, you've been caught with you pants down. Again.

Guess not. But, your effort was AMUSING.

Pamela

"kyfunguy" wrote in message
...

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
??? "two or three jobs"???

kyfunguy wrote:

So if a person under employed of out of work does that means your
kids
don't
have to eat ??

I have been both under/un employed at different times while
raising
my
kids
and I still had to find jobs that paid crap or were awful so the
kids
could
survive decently IMO its called a parental responsibility.


I do not understand why this is a hard concept to grasp.

Pamela



I don't understand Dusty's argument either.... If I suddenly lost my
job...
I'd do what it took to keep my CS payments going.. even if that took
two
or
three jobs, until I found comparable work.

Or until you died from working 24 hours/day. You are stupid.

Mel Gamble

Mr. Gamble.... I don't know about you....but I was brought up with the
belief that children, until they reach the age of 18, are to be supported
by
their parents. Parents are SUPPOSED to sacrifice for the needs of their
children.

A little story --- my grandmother on my mother's side had 8 children. In
the
midst of the Great Depression, her husband suddenly died of tuberculosis.
Now, here was a 30 - something woman, with 8 kids, who never had anything
more then an 8th grade education... found herself having to find the means
to support her family. Although she was a very religious woman, and
absolutely hated alcohol, the only job she could get was at the local
distillery, gluing on the bottle labels. She worked 10 hour days; took in
additional laundry on the side for extra money; managed to feed / clothe /
raise 8 children in the worst economic times in this countries history.
All
without ever complaining.
If my grandmother didn't make the sacrifices necessary to keep her family
alive, I might not even be here today. I can only hope to think if I were
ever faced with the same situation that my grandmother was... that I would
have the same fortitude and strength that she did.


I mean no disrespect to your grandmother, because what she did was
absolutely heroic. Any single parent deserves special credit for keeping
their train on the track. However, and this is where the problem really
lies, she didn't haven't the state standing over her saying if you don't
spend $1500/month solely on your children (this doesn't include any living
expenses -like rent, car payment, utilities, etc that she needs) we will
sieze your bank accounts, take any tax refund you might have coming, and/or
put you in jail. If money was tight, and I'm sure it was more often than
not, everybody pulled together and sucked it up. No one became a criminal or
had to incur legal expenses because the state didn't receive an arbitrary
amount of money that month.

Here's a little story that really describes what it looks like from a NCP's
perspective. Unknown to me, the state took money out of my unemployment
check when I was laid off just after I moved out. I kept paying the full
amount. I was eventually over a month adhead in my payments. I never
recieved anything from the state clueing me into this fact. Once I found
this out, about a year later, I adjusted my payment schedule to correct
this. A few months later, out of the blue, I get this legal document from
the state saying I was behind in the amount of $11.64. The letter threatened
to take any tax refund I might have coming as well as some other tactics I
don't care to remember, if I didn't pay this amount immediately. The crazy
thing is I was paying exactly what I was supposed to be paying. I don't even
know where this $11.64 came from. So after being several hundred dollars
ahead for about a year they decide they need to bring to bare the full
weight of the law against me for ALLEDGEDLY being behind $11.64. (I added
the "alledgedly" part. There was no doubt in their minds that I was behind.)





As a side note -- when my divorce was final, I was working full time,
and my
ex hadn't had a steady, full-time job, for years. As such, the burden
of
CS
was place heavily on me (it was about a 80/20 split for financial
responsibility). Since that time, my ex now works full time... and
makes
a
reasonable income. Theoretically, now that she's had full time
employment
for several months, I could go back to court and have the CS
re-figured
based upon her ability to contribute more. But I won't. Why..? Because
my
kids are even better off with my CS and my ex's good income... and
that's
just fine with me.

"kyfunguy" wrote in message
...

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
??? "two or three jobs"???

kyfunguy wrote:

So if a person under employed of out of work does that means your
kids
don't
have to eat ??

I have been both under/un employed at different times while
raising
my
kids
and I still had to find jobs that paid crap or were awful so the
kids
could
survive decently IMO its called a parental responsibility.


I do not understand why this is a hard concept to grasp.

Pamela



I don't understand Dusty's argument either.... If I suddenly lost my
job...
I'd do what it took to keep my CS payments going.. even if that took
two
or
three jobs, until I found comparable work.

Or until you died from working 24 hours/day. You are stupid.

Mel Gamble

Mr. Gamble.... I don't know about you....but I was brought up with the
belief that children, until they reach the age of 18, are to be supported
by
their parents. Parents are SUPPOSED to sacrifice for the needs of their
children.

A little story --- my grandmother on my mother's side had 8 children. In
the
midst of the Great Depression, her husband suddenly died of tuberculosis.
Now, here was a 30 - something woman, with 8 kids, who never had anything
more then an 8th grade education... found herself having to find the means
to support her family. Although she was a very religious woman, and
absolutely hated alcohol, the only job she could get was at the local
distillery, gluing on the bottle labels. She worked 10 hour days; took in
additional laundry on the side for extra money; managed to feed / clothe /
raise 8 children in the worst economic times in this countries history.
All
without ever complaining.
If my grandmother didn't make the sacrifices necessary to keep her family
alive, I might not even be here today. I can only hope to think if I were
ever faced with the same situation that my grandmother was... that I would
have the same fortitude and strength that she did.


I mean no disrespect to your grandmother, because what she did was
absolutely heroic. Any single parent deserves special credit for keeping
their train on the track. However, and this is where the problem really
lies, she didn't haven't the state standing over her saying if you don't
spend $1500/month solely on your children (this doesn't include any living
expenses -like rent, car payment, utilities, etc that she needs) we will
sieze your bank accounts, take any tax refund you might have coming, and/or
put you in jail. If money was tight, and I'm sure it was more often than
not, everybody pulled together and sucked it up. No one became a criminal or
had to incur legal expenses because the state didn't receive an arbitrary
amount of money that month.

Here's a little story that really describes what it looks like from a NCP's
perspective. Unknown to me, the state took money out of my unemployment
check when I was laid off just after I moved out. I kept paying the full
amount. I was eventually over a month adhead in my payments. I never
recieved anything from the state clueing me into this fact. Once I found
this out, about a year later, I adjusted my payment schedule to correct
this. A few months later, out of the blue, I get this legal document from
the state saying I was behind in the amount of $11.64. The letter threatened
to take any tax refund I might have coming as well as some other tactics I
don't care to remember, if I didn't pay this amount immediately. The crazy
thing is I was paying exactly what I was supposed to be paying. I don't even
know where this $11.64 came from. So after being several hundred dollars
ahead for about a year they decide they need to bring to bare the full
weight of the law against me for ALLEDGEDLY being behind $11.64. (I added
the "alledgedly" part. There was no doubt in their minds that I was behind.)





As a side note -- when my divorce was final, I was working full time,
and my
ex hadn't had a steady, full-time job, for years. As such, the burden
of
CS
was place heavily on me (it was about a 80/20 split for financial
responsibility). Since that time, my ex now works full time... and
makes
a
reasonable income. Theoretically, now that she's had full time
employment
for several months, I could go back to court and have the CS
re-figured
based upon her ability to contribute more. But I won't. Why..? Because
my
kids are even better off with my CS and my ex's good income... and
that's
just fine with me.

"kyfunguy" wrote in message
...

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
??? "two or three jobs"???

kyfunguy wrote:

So if a person under employed of out of work does that means your
kids
don't
have to eat ??

I have been both under/un employed at different times while
raising
my
kids
and I still had to find jobs that paid crap or were awful so the
kids
could
survive decently IMO its called a parental responsibility.


I do not understand why this is a hard concept to grasp.

Pamela



I don't understand Dusty's argument either.... If I suddenly lost my
job...
I'd do what it took to keep my CS payments going.. even if that took
two
or
three jobs, until I found comparable work.

Or until you died from working 24 hours/day. You are stupid.

Mel Gamble

Mr. Gamble.... I don't know about you....but I was brought up with the
belief that children, until they reach the age of 18, are to be supported
by
their parents. Parents are SUPPOSED to sacrifice for the needs of their
children.

A little story --- my grandmother on my mother's side had 8 children. In
the
midst of the Great Depression, her husband suddenly died of tuberculosis.
Now, here was a 30 - something woman, with 8 kids, who never had anything
more then an 8th grade education... found herself having to find the means
to support her family. Although she was a very religious woman, and
absolutely hated alcohol, the only job she could get was at the local
distillery, gluing on the bottle labels. She worked 10 hour days; took in
additional laundry on the side for extra money; managed to feed / clothe /
raise 8 children in the worst economic times in this countries history.
All
without ever complaining.
If my grandmother didn't make the sacrifices necessary to keep her family
alive, I might not even be here today. I can only hope to think if I were
ever faced with the same situation that my grandmother was... that I would
have the same fortitude and strength that she did.


I mean no disrespect to your grandmother, because what she did was
absolutely heroic. Any single parent deserves special credit for keeping
their train on the track. However, and this is where the problem really
lies, she didn't haven't the state standing over her saying if you don't
spend $1500/month solely on your children (this doesn't include any living
expenses -like rent, car payment, utilities, etc that she needs) we will
sieze your bank accounts, take any tax refund you might have coming, and/or
put you in jail. If money was tight, and I'm sure it was more often than
not, everybody pulled together and sucked it up. No one became a criminal or
had to incur legal expenses because the state didn't receive an arbitrary
amount of money that month.

Here's a little story that really describes what it looks like from a NCP's
perspective. Unknown to me, the state took money out of my unemployment
check when I was laid off just after I moved out. I kept paying the full
amount. I was eventually over a month adhead in my payments. I never
recieved anything from the state clueing me into this fact. Once I found
this out, about a year later, I adjusted my payment schedule to correct
this. A few months later, out of the blue, I get this legal document from
the state saying I was behind in the amount of $11.64. The letter threatened
to take any tax refund I might have coming as well as some other tactics I
don't care to remember, if I didn't pay this amount immediately. The crazy
thing is I was paying exactly what I was supposed to be paying. I don't even
know where this $11.64 came from. So after being several hundred dollars
ahead for about a year they decide they need to bring to bare the full
weight of the law against me for ALLEDGEDLY being behind $11.64. (I added
the "alledgedly" part. There was no doubt in their minds that I was behind.)





As a side note -- when my divorce was final, I was working full time,
and my
ex hadn't had a steady, full-time job, for years. As such, the burden
of
CS
was place heavily on me (it was about a 80/20 split for financial
responsibility). Since that time, my ex now works full time... and
makes
a
reasonable income. Theoretically, now that she's had full time
employment
for several months, I could go back to court and have the CS
re-figured
based upon her ability to contribute more. But I won't. Why..? Because
my
kids are even better off with my CS and my ex's good income... and
that's
just fine with me.

"kyfunguy" wrote in message
...

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
??? "two or three jobs"???

kyfunguy wrote:

So if a person under employed of out of work does that means your
kids
don't
have to eat ??

I have been both under/un employed at different times while
raising
my
kids
and I still had to find jobs that paid crap or were awful so the
kids
could
survive decently IMO its called a parental responsibility.


I do not understand why this is a hard concept to grasp.

Pamela



I don't understand Dusty's argument either.... If I suddenly lost my
job...
I'd do what it took to keep my CS payments going.. even if that took
two
or
three jobs, until I found comparable work.

Or until you died from working 24 hours/day. You are stupid.

Mel Gamble

Mr. Gamble.... I don't know about you....but I was brought up with the
belief that children, until they reach the age of 18, are to be supported
by
their parents. Parents are SUPPOSED to sacrifice for the needs of their
children.

A little story --- my grandmother on my mother's side had 8 children. In
the
midst of the Great Depression, her husband suddenly died of tuberculosis.
Now, here was a 30 - something woman, with 8 kids, who never had anything
more then an 8th grade education... found herself having to find the means
to support her family. Although she was a very religious woman, and
absolutely hated alcohol, the only job she could get was at the local
distillery, gluing on the bottle labels. She worked 10 hour days; took in
additional laundry on the side for extra money; managed to feed / clothe /
raise 8 children in the worst economic times in this countries history.
All
without ever complaining.
If my grandmother didn't make the sacrifices necessary to keep her family
alive, I might not even be here today. I can only hope to think if I were
ever faced with the same situation that my grandmother was... that I would
have the same fortitude and strength that she did.


I mean no disrespect to your grandmother, because what she did was
absolutely heroic. Any single parent deserves special credit for keeping
their train on the track. However, and this is where the problem really
lies, she didn't haven't the state standing over her saying if you don't
spend $1500/month solely on your children (this doesn't include any living
expenses -like rent, car payment, utilities, etc that she needs) we will
sieze your bank accounts, take any tax refund you might have coming, and/or
put you in jail. If money was tight, and I'm sure it was more often than
not, everybody pulled together and sucked it up. No one became a criminal or
had to incur legal expenses because the state didn't receive an arbitrary
amount of money that month.

Here's a little story that really describes what it looks like from a NCP's
perspective. Unknown to me, the state took money out of my unemployment
check when I was laid off just after I moved out. I kept paying the full
amount. I was eventually over a month adhead in my payments. I never
recieved anything from the state clueing me into this fact. Once I found
this out, about a year later, I adjusted my payment schedule to correct
this. A few months later, out of the blue, I get this legal document from
the state saying I was behind in the amount of $11.64. The letter threatened
to take any tax refund I might have coming as well as some other tactics I
don't care to remember, if I didn't pay this amount immediately. The crazy
thing is I was paying exactly what I was supposed to be paying. I don't even
know where this $11.64 came from. So after being several hundred dollars
ahead for about a year they decide they need to bring to bare the full
weight of the law against me for ALLEDGEDLY being behind $11.64. (I added
the "alledgedly" part. There was no doubt in their minds that I was behind.)





As a side note -- when my divorce was final, I was working full time,
and my
ex hadn't had a steady, full-time job, for years. As such, the burden
of
CS
was place heavily on me (it was about a 80/20 split for financial
responsibility). Since that time, my ex now works full time... and
makes
a
reasonable income. Theoretically, now that she's had full time
employment
for several months, I could go back to court and have the CS
re-figured
based upon her ability to contribute more. But I won't. Why..? Because
my
kids are even better off with my CS and my ex's good income... and
that's
just fine with me.

"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking
a

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support
ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month. His
child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.

THESE ARE HIS CHILDREN. They come before new car payments, cable, or
anything else.
Pamela



Your friend earns 2k/month, pays out $727/month, leaving them with
$1273/month. Let's assume their X also makes 2k/month. After CS, the X has
$2727/month. If your friend wants the children in their life, they have to
spend as much as the X to provide the necessary living space. The only
difference in living expenses would be for food, and quite possibly slighter
higher utilities. So, what the X does with $2727/month, your friend is
supposed to do with just $1273? (And there is no guarantee that the children
receive any benefit from the CS other than those items which they share in
common with the CP.)

My X told the mediator at our CS hearing that she didn't have enough money
to buy her son shoes. She also mentioned in passing that she just bought a 1
year old town house for $145,000.00. No one even blinked or bothered to ask
her to justify her actions. Why would a mother buy a home if it would cause
her children go without basic clothing? My X thinks CS is an entitlement
program -for her. The up'd my child support. She's buying a home and I had
to give up an apartment that was just 4 blocks away from my sons because I
couldn't afford the rent any longer.

The whole idea of fair share becomes a quagmire when you stop looking at
just one set of the groups involved. I keep coming to the same conclusion
that there should be 2 sets of rules. 1 set for those who can rule
themselves, and another set for those that can't. CS only has rules for
those that can't and assumes anyone that doesn't toe their line is someone
who can't rule themselves.


--
from Dave the wave

^^^^^^\________