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?

"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.

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?

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.
==

"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?