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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"dead beat" parent round-up
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat parents" here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4 news reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the term "dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads but no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one* woman. The token woman. I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten them a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet. With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can all send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will be listening? ~AZ~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------- I'll bet you a beer (of your choice) that better than 90% of these men where destitute, down-on-their-luck, unemployed, fathers. --------------------------- Heinekin Dark thankyouverymuch. Of course 90% of these men were destitute. All the ones who are earning any kind of money are already having their income garnished. ------------------------- It would be better to help these men (and the single woman their 'snared') to find employment, then to jail them for failure to support their children. ----------------------- And with the bonds set for some of the guys, unless they have very good friends or family to loan them the money, they are going to be sitting there for a long time. ------------------------ I predict, that soon, there will be no one to use as a scapegoat any longer. That very soon, there will be no one to point a finger at, save for the very agencies (federal, state, and local) which create such problems to 'solve'. ------------------- As long as men and women keep getting together there will always be a scapegoat, (unless the laws change). I'm just angry that the media just reports what the pro-cs people want them to and there's not anyone looking at the other side. ~AZ~ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"dead beat" parent round-up
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat parents" here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4 news reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the term "dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads but no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one* woman. The token woman. I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten them a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet. With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can all send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will be listening? ~AZ~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------- I'll bet you a beer (of your choice) that better than 90% of these men where destitute, down-on-their-luck, unemployed, fathers. --------------------------- Heinekin Dark thankyouverymuch. Of course 90% of these men were destitute. All the ones who are earning any kind of money are already having their income garnished. ------------------------- It would be better to help these men (and the single woman their 'snared') to find employment, then to jail them for failure to support their children. ----------------------- And with the bonds set for some of the guys, unless they have very good friends or family to loan them the money, they are going to be sitting there for a long time. ------------------------ I predict, that soon, there will be no one to use as a scapegoat any longer. That very soon, there will be no one to point a finger at, save for the very agencies (federal, state, and local) which create such problems to 'solve'. ------------------- As long as men and women keep getting together there will always be a scapegoat, (unless the laws change). I'm just angry that the media just reports what the pro-cs people want them to and there's not anyone looking at the other side. ~AZ~ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"dead beat" parent round-up
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat parents" here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4 news reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the term "dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads but no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one* woman. The token woman. I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten them a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet. With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can all send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will be listening? ~AZ~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------- I'll bet you a beer (of your choice) that better than 90% of these men where destitute, down-on-their-luck, unemployed, fathers. --------------------------- Heinekin Dark thankyouverymuch. Of course 90% of these men were destitute. All the ones who are earning any kind of money are already having their income garnished. ------------------------- It would be better to help these men (and the single woman their 'snared') to find employment, then to jail them for failure to support their children. ----------------------- And with the bonds set for some of the guys, unless they have very good friends or family to loan them the money, they are going to be sitting there for a long time. ------------------------ I predict, that soon, there will be no one to use as a scapegoat any longer. That very soon, there will be no one to point a finger at, save for the very agencies (federal, state, and local) which create such problems to 'solve'. ------------------- As long as men and women keep getting together there will always be a scapegoat, (unless the laws change). I'm just angry that the media just reports what the pro-cs people want them to and there's not anyone looking at the other side. ~AZ~ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"dead beat" parent round-up
Sorry to reply to my own post but below is a copy of what I sent to the tv
station. Warning it's long. "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat parents" here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4 news reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the term "dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads but no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one* woman. The token woman. I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten them a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet. With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can all send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will be listening? ~AZ~ ----------------------------------- Operation child-support Letter to KVOA.com for their coverage of this April 1, 2004 It's frustrating and makes me angry every time I hear another news story about a round-up of 'dead beat' parents. The reality is that 1. Men make up the majority of those ordered to pay child support,(of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening 1 is a woman). 2.The main reason men don't pay their child support is that they *can't* pay it. Since 1988 child support orders could no longer be determined by a judge according to the reasonable needs of the children. Instead, the Family Support Act required each state to adopt its own numerical "guideline" to calculate child support, or risk losing federal welfare funding. The only restriction on state child support guidelines was that awards be "appropriate." Federal law funded child support enforcement programs in every state, and most importantly, rewarded states with "incentive payments" based on a percentage of money collected. In 1989, to comply with federal law, states hastily adopted the required child support guidelines. The heavily promoted Income Shares guideline is based on the premise that child support should guarantee children the same theoretical "share" of parental income that they would have enjoyed had their parents been living together. Omitted is the troublesome fact that after separation, two households need to be supported instead of one. Virtually overnight, child support awards tripled. Inflated child support awards maximize state child support collections, justify the administrative expenses of child support enforcement programs, and ensure the continuing influx of federal incentive payments. But there is nothing in place to assure that the money is actually spent on the children. Only the father is held accountable for paying money that is supposed to help the children. The mother can spend the money on the kids, or not, as she feels and is not accountable to anyone. While good for state budgets, excessive child support awards are extremely harmful to working, middle-class divorced fathers. For example, in California, a mother earning $35,000 per year, living with two children 75% of the time, would receive $15,000 tax-free from her ex-husband earning $75,000. After taxes, the mother would net $44,000, the father $34,000. This baseline Income Shares award excludes child care expenses, special educational expenses, and health insurance costs, which are "add-ons" to the father's support obligation. Child support enforcement is rife with conflicts of interest and overt corruption: ? The OCSE contracted with a firm called Child Support Recoveries, Inc. to certify that state child support guidelines were "appropriate." This company contracts with states as a child support collection agency, and has a direct financial stake in high child support awards. ? State legislatures, including California's, routinely contract with a firm called Policy Studies, Inc. to review the "appropriateness" of state child support guidelines. This closely held Denver firm is headed by none other than child support entrepreneur Robert Williams, who developed the Income Shares guideline. Again, in a clear conflict of interest, Policy Studies, Inc. derives substantial revenue from child support collections. The higher the child support awards, the more money this company makes. The original goal of federal child support enforcement, to reimburse the welfare program, has not been achieved by any state. This is because welfare-related child support debt, especially at these absurd guideline levels, appears to be largely uncollectable. There is no legitimate federal interest in subsidizing state child support collections in non-welfare cases. Indeed, as shown above, the federal government, through the OCSE and incentive payments, has caused the gross inflation of child support awards. Poor fathers simply can't pay, and middle-income fathers are financially devastated. "Operation childsupport" and the propaganda that surrounds it needs to be exposed for the fraud that it is and news people all over need to become enlightened to the sad reality of what is happening to the children and the fathers victimized by the family court system. There is a newsgroup, alt-child-support, where you can begin to hear some of the real-life stories of disenfranchised fathers and what has become of their lives since the child support collectors have come after them. That is, if you really want to learn the truth. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"dead beat" parent round-up
Sorry to reply to my own post but below is a copy of what I sent to the tv
station. Warning it's long. "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat parents" here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4 news reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the term "dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads but no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one* woman. The token woman. I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten them a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet. With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can all send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will be listening? ~AZ~ ----------------------------------- Operation child-support Letter to KVOA.com for their coverage of this April 1, 2004 It's frustrating and makes me angry every time I hear another news story about a round-up of 'dead beat' parents. The reality is that 1. Men make up the majority of those ordered to pay child support,(of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening 1 is a woman). 2.The main reason men don't pay their child support is that they *can't* pay it. Since 1988 child support orders could no longer be determined by a judge according to the reasonable needs of the children. Instead, the Family Support Act required each state to adopt its own numerical "guideline" to calculate child support, or risk losing federal welfare funding. The only restriction on state child support guidelines was that awards be "appropriate." Federal law funded child support enforcement programs in every state, and most importantly, rewarded states with "incentive payments" based on a percentage of money collected. In 1989, to comply with federal law, states hastily adopted the required child support guidelines. The heavily promoted Income Shares guideline is based on the premise that child support should guarantee children the same theoretical "share" of parental income that they would have enjoyed had their parents been living together. Omitted is the troublesome fact that after separation, two households need to be supported instead of one. Virtually overnight, child support awards tripled. Inflated child support awards maximize state child support collections, justify the administrative expenses of child support enforcement programs, and ensure the continuing influx of federal incentive payments. But there is nothing in place to assure that the money is actually spent on the children. Only the father is held accountable for paying money that is supposed to help the children. The mother can spend the money on the kids, or not, as she feels and is not accountable to anyone. While good for state budgets, excessive child support awards are extremely harmful to working, middle-class divorced fathers. For example, in California, a mother earning $35,000 per year, living with two children 75% of the time, would receive $15,000 tax-free from her ex-husband earning $75,000. After taxes, the mother would net $44,000, the father $34,000. This baseline Income Shares award excludes child care expenses, special educational expenses, and health insurance costs, which are "add-ons" to the father's support obligation. Child support enforcement is rife with conflicts of interest and overt corruption: ? The OCSE contracted with a firm called Child Support Recoveries, Inc. to certify that state child support guidelines were "appropriate." This company contracts with states as a child support collection agency, and has a direct financial stake in high child support awards. ? State legislatures, including California's, routinely contract with a firm called Policy Studies, Inc. to review the "appropriateness" of state child support guidelines. This closely held Denver firm is headed by none other than child support entrepreneur Robert Williams, who developed the Income Shares guideline. Again, in a clear conflict of interest, Policy Studies, Inc. derives substantial revenue from child support collections. The higher the child support awards, the more money this company makes. The original goal of federal child support enforcement, to reimburse the welfare program, has not been achieved by any state. This is because welfare-related child support debt, especially at these absurd guideline levels, appears to be largely uncollectable. There is no legitimate federal interest in subsidizing state child support collections in non-welfare cases. Indeed, as shown above, the federal government, through the OCSE and incentive payments, has caused the gross inflation of child support awards. Poor fathers simply can't pay, and middle-income fathers are financially devastated. "Operation childsupport" and the propaganda that surrounds it needs to be exposed for the fraud that it is and news people all over need to become enlightened to the sad reality of what is happening to the children and the fathers victimized by the family court system. There is a newsgroup, alt-child-support, where you can begin to hear some of the real-life stories of disenfranchised fathers and what has become of their lives since the child support collectors have come after them. That is, if you really want to learn the truth. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"dead beat" parent round-up
Sorry to reply to my own post but below is a copy of what I sent to the tv
station. Warning it's long. "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat parents" here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4 news reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the term "dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads but no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one* woman. The token woman. I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten them a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet. With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can all send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will be listening? ~AZ~ ----------------------------------- Operation child-support Letter to KVOA.com for their coverage of this April 1, 2004 It's frustrating and makes me angry every time I hear another news story about a round-up of 'dead beat' parents. The reality is that 1. Men make up the majority of those ordered to pay child support,(of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening 1 is a woman). 2.The main reason men don't pay their child support is that they *can't* pay it. Since 1988 child support orders could no longer be determined by a judge according to the reasonable needs of the children. Instead, the Family Support Act required each state to adopt its own numerical "guideline" to calculate child support, or risk losing federal welfare funding. The only restriction on state child support guidelines was that awards be "appropriate." Federal law funded child support enforcement programs in every state, and most importantly, rewarded states with "incentive payments" based on a percentage of money collected. In 1989, to comply with federal law, states hastily adopted the required child support guidelines. The heavily promoted Income Shares guideline is based on the premise that child support should guarantee children the same theoretical "share" of parental income that they would have enjoyed had their parents been living together. Omitted is the troublesome fact that after separation, two households need to be supported instead of one. Virtually overnight, child support awards tripled. Inflated child support awards maximize state child support collections, justify the administrative expenses of child support enforcement programs, and ensure the continuing influx of federal incentive payments. But there is nothing in place to assure that the money is actually spent on the children. Only the father is held accountable for paying money that is supposed to help the children. The mother can spend the money on the kids, or not, as she feels and is not accountable to anyone. While good for state budgets, excessive child support awards are extremely harmful to working, middle-class divorced fathers. For example, in California, a mother earning $35,000 per year, living with two children 75% of the time, would receive $15,000 tax-free from her ex-husband earning $75,000. After taxes, the mother would net $44,000, the father $34,000. This baseline Income Shares award excludes child care expenses, special educational expenses, and health insurance costs, which are "add-ons" to the father's support obligation. Child support enforcement is rife with conflicts of interest and overt corruption: ? The OCSE contracted with a firm called Child Support Recoveries, Inc. to certify that state child support guidelines were "appropriate." This company contracts with states as a child support collection agency, and has a direct financial stake in high child support awards. ? State legislatures, including California's, routinely contract with a firm called Policy Studies, Inc. to review the "appropriateness" of state child support guidelines. This closely held Denver firm is headed by none other than child support entrepreneur Robert Williams, who developed the Income Shares guideline. Again, in a clear conflict of interest, Policy Studies, Inc. derives substantial revenue from child support collections. The higher the child support awards, the more money this company makes. The original goal of federal child support enforcement, to reimburse the welfare program, has not been achieved by any state. This is because welfare-related child support debt, especially at these absurd guideline levels, appears to be largely uncollectable. There is no legitimate federal interest in subsidizing state child support collections in non-welfare cases. Indeed, as shown above, the federal government, through the OCSE and incentive payments, has caused the gross inflation of child support awards. Poor fathers simply can't pay, and middle-income fathers are financially devastated. "Operation childsupport" and the propaganda that surrounds it needs to be exposed for the fraud that it is and news people all over need to become enlightened to the sad reality of what is happening to the children and the fathers victimized by the family court system. There is a newsgroup, alt-child-support, where you can begin to hear some of the real-life stories of disenfranchised fathers and what has become of their lives since the child support collectors have come after them. That is, if you really want to learn the truth. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"dead beat" parent round-up
As a fellow Tucsonan, I am pleased to hear about your letter to kvoa. I
didn't see the report on channel 4 but I sure heard about it at work today. I was also prompted to write a letter, not only to KVOA, but also to our state Rep Kolbe, who has yet to respond to any of my letters and emails regarding child support issues. Keep up the faith. Michael I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten them a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet. With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can all send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will be listening? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"dead beat" parent round-up
As a fellow Tucsonan, I am pleased to hear about your letter to kvoa. I
didn't see the report on channel 4 but I sure heard about it at work today. I was also prompted to write a letter, not only to KVOA, but also to our state Rep Kolbe, who has yet to respond to any of my letters and emails regarding child support issues. Keep up the faith. Michael I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten them a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet. With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can all send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will be listening? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"dead beat" parent round-up
As a fellow Tucsonan, I am pleased to hear about your letter to kvoa. I
didn't see the report on channel 4 but I sure heard about it at work today. I was also prompted to write a letter, not only to KVOA, but also to our state Rep Kolbe, who has yet to respond to any of my letters and emails regarding child support issues. Keep up the faith. Michael I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten them a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet. With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can all send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will be listening? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"dead beat" parent round-up
AZ Astrea wrote:
"Gini52" wrote in message .. In article , AZ Astrea says... Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat parents" here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4 news reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the term "dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads but no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one* woman. The token woman. I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten them a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet. With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can all send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will be listening? ============== Ya know, I've been wanting to do this for years and never seem to find the time/motivation (I confess). You are right--We do need a bevy of well-written editable(?)letters posted here that could be sent to various media /government outlets. Umm...Kenneth? :-) ---------------------------- I agree. I have started and stopped over and over a 'standardized' letter that could be used for that purpose but I am not as good a writer as many here. I receive the ACLU action alerts that are letters about various subjects that I can add comments to and then I send it to my Congressmen via fax or e-mail. These letters are well written, they don't sound like ranting and raving yet they get the point across very well. If you want to see some examples go to the ACLU website at www.aclu.org and check them out. Can anybody here write a right-to-the-point type letter without using the terms propaganda or nazis? I couldn't. What you want is a little of your own propaganda, that doesn't look like such. Feed me the facts you want presented and I could write you anything. I'll post a copy of the e-mail I sent. Cool. - Ron ^*^ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |
The Plant answer DNA swab Question | Kane | Spanking | 11 | September 26th 03 09:14 AM |