Letter I intend to send to sponsor/co-sponsors of The Child Support Enforcement Act of 2005

"DB" wrote in message
. com...

"P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote in

....his first career....at the present time. Even if he went back to it,
he has been out so long he would not make nearly what they saddled him
with.

He has grounds to appeal that decision,

It take s more thangrounds to appeal....you ahve to have the $$$ and the
time to wait for the backlog, and then hope they actually agree to hear the
appeal, by the time it would get through the system, his kids will be over
18 anyway..........i.e. the system is rigged. "spidey" just turns a blind
eye to that (and most other) fact.

but then again these rotten judges know this and they need to be held
accountable for their abusive conduct. They are taking far too many
liberties with the power granted to them. It's a position of trust that is
being used by the state to do nothing mor than raise money. It's not
helping anyone but the system!

Here is the problem folks.

Politicians cannot solve poverty through CS. Period. That is why there
is so much child support on the books as being "owed."

So, politicians created a system to **** middle class guys out of a lot
of their money and pretend that they are solving poverty ($XXXXXXXX in
CS collected, whoppie for the politicians) and pretend they are keeping
the welfare roles empty. It is a shell game, a con at best.

Since a woman should never be held responsible for her actions in our
society (check the average sentences for female criminals), it cannot
be the mother's fault that she lives in the ghetto and has 5 kids by 4
different dudes. And God forbid that the NCP gets custody and the child
has a decent standard of living.

If politicians really cared about children and poverty they should
allow income to be taken into account in determining fitness to be a
parent. If both parents make above a certain amount, like $15,000, then
income should not be taken into account. I wonder how many kids live in
poverty cause mommy spends the CS on rent for the ****-whole they live
in and sits on her ass all day.

Special interests groups (read: feminists) lobby for increased child
support using the aforementioned uncollectable child support that is
"owed" to raise child support (or go to the current system after
alimony began to fall out of favor). This serves their constituency,
which is largely made up of divorced middle-class mothers. Whoppie!
It's for the kids! Not really, NOW is the National (socialist)
Organization for Women (but only us feminists).

Most women remarry, so we end up with one woman being supported by two
men, assuming CS is paid and hubby works. Yea for socialism,
redistribute that money.

CS is largely term alimony for middle-class divorced women that she
doesn't lose upon remarriage and she never had to be married to
receive. The "kids" are simply the tool to get the money.

If you are on welfare you cannot support yourself, much less your
children. I drive to work everyday and see help wanted signs
everywhere, if you cannot at least get a decent job, you cannot raise
children.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated in research studies that the
best preventive measure for childhood poverty is a two-parent family. If
preventing childhood poverty were the objective, politicians, bureaucrats,
and judges would focus their attention on avoiding family breakups and
illegitimate births.

However, preventing childhood poverty ISN'T the prime objective.
For years, the dirty little secret behind most actions in regard to families
has been that the prime objective is to enlarge the options available to
women. Part of enlarging options is making others (notably the fathers of
the children involved) pay for women to make unilateral decisions about
these matters. If you doubt this, just look at the reaction when anyone
proposes anything that would strengthen the position of fathers within
two-parent families.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Here is the problem folks.

Politicians cannot solve poverty through CS. Period. That is why there
is so much child support on the books as being "owed."

So, politicians created a system to **** middle class guys out of a lot
of their money and pretend that they are solving poverty ($XXXXXXXX in
CS collected, whoppie for the politicians) and pretend they are keeping
the welfare roles empty. It is a shell game, a con at best.

Since a woman should never be held responsible for her actions in our
society (check the average sentences for female criminals), it cannot
be the mother's fault that she lives in the ghetto and has 5 kids by 4
different dudes. And God forbid that the NCP gets custody and the child
has a decent standard of living.

If politicians really cared about children and poverty they should
allow income to be taken into account in determining fitness to be a
parent. If both parents make above a certain amount, like $15,000, then
income should not be taken into account. I wonder how many kids live in
poverty cause mommy spends the CS on rent for the ****-whole they live
in and sits on her ass all day.

Special interests groups (read: feminists) lobby for increased child
support using the aforementioned uncollectable child support that is
"owed" to raise child support (or go to the current system after
alimony began to fall out of favor). This serves their constituency,
which is largely made up of divorced middle-class mothers. Whoppie!
It's for the kids! Not really, NOW is the National (socialist)
Organization for Women (but only us feminists).

Most women remarry, so we end up with one woman being supported by two
men, assuming CS is paid and hubby works. Yea for socialism,
redistribute that money.

CS is largely term alimony for middle-class divorced women that she
doesn't lose upon remarriage and she never had to be married to
receive. The "kids" are simply the tool to get the money.

If you are on welfare you cannot support yourself, much less your
children. I drive to work everyday and see help wanted signs
everywhere, if you cannot at least get a decent job, you cannot raise
children.

wrote:
Here is the problem folks.

Politicians cannot solve poverty through CS. Period. That is why there
is so much child support on the books as being "owed."

So, politicians created a system to **** middle class guys out of a lot
of their money and pretend that they are solving poverty ($XXXXXXXX in
CS collected, whoppie for the politicians) and pretend they are keeping
the welfare roles empty. It is a shell game, a con at best.

I agree that CS is over paid by alot of men. Howver I do agree with
it being paid on the basis regardless of what happens, as the parent of
a child you have a finicial responsibility. I think there needs to be
a re-working of how CS is calculated. And if you re my previous posts
I think you can figure how.

Since a woman should never be held responsible for her actions in our
society (check the average sentences for female criminals), it cannot
be the mother's fault that she lives in the ghetto and has 5 kids by 4
different dudes. And God forbid that the NCP gets custody and the child
has a decent standard of living.

Again I agree that in genral we always look for a reason as to why a
woman did something. And with a man, the reason is secondary.. That
whole way of thinking needs to change.

But at the same token... if as a guy you walk into a relation, and
know this women has children with different men, why wouldn't you
excerise your reproductive right to wear a freaking a condom, or better
yet not have sex with the dam girl. To ensure you don't add fuel to
this fire. Because you know she is capable of having more children.

If politicians really cared about children and poverty they should
allow income to be taken into account in determining fitness to be a
parent. If both parents make above a certain amount, like $15,000, then
income should not be taken into account. I wonder how many kids live in
poverty cause mommy spends the CS on rent for the ****-whole they live
in and sits on her ass all day.

Income should never be taken into account anyways. I think stabiliy
of a home. And I think if alot of cases were reveiwed the father would
gain custody. If the mother works 9-5 in an office, is home every
night... and the father say is a sales person who is always on the road
4-5 days a week. The father may make more money, but does that mean he
will provide a more stable household.

Special interests groups (read: feminists) lobby for increased child
support using the aforementioned uncollectable child support that is
"owed" to raise child support (or go to the current system after
alimony began to fall out of favor). This serves their constituency,
which is largely made up of divorced middle-class mothers. Whoppie!
It's for the kids! Not really, NOW is the National (socialist)
Organization for Women (but only us feminists).

This I don't know if is the case.. You could be right, I don't
dispute that.. but to me sounds more like an opinion then a fact. So
I'll take it with a grain of salt.

Most women remarry, so we end up with one woman being supported by two
men, assuming CS is paid and hubby works. Yea for socialism,
redistribute that money.

Redistribute the money why? The woman re-marries... So What. Say
you re-marry.. your household income goes up.. should you be expected
to pay more in Support now. No... Same thing here.. just because her
income level has risen, doesn't mean your less responsible for your
child.

I think there needs to be a re-working of how CS is calculated
period.

CS is largely term alimony for middle-class divorced women that she
doesn't lose upon remarriage and she never had to be married to
receive. The "kids" are simply the tool to get the money.

You know in some cases you may be correct. However I don't think
this is the case for the vast majority.

If you are on welfare you cannot support yourself, much less your
children. I drive to work everyday and see help wanted signs
everywhere, if you cannot at least get a decent job, you cannot raise
children.

As much as I agree with you, if you want a job.. there is a work out
there.. But at the same time I think there are circumstances to every
case. As a single parent of an Autistic child I can account for this.

I am fortunate enough that I do a majority of my work out of my
home.. Because do the unique care my son requires.. and amount of my
attention during his waking hours, there is no way I could hold down a
full time job (Out Of The Home) while trying to care for my son... And
still make the decent income that I do. Just not enough hours in the
day.

So before you start calling people lazy, investigate as to why they
are not working. There could be a valid reason.

SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
Here is the problem folks.

Politicians cannot solve poverty through CS. Period. That is why there
is so much child support on the books as being "owed."

So, politicians created a system to **** middle class guys out of a lot
of their money and pretend that they are solving poverty ($XXXXXXXX in
CS collected, whoppie for the politicians) and pretend they are keeping
the welfare roles empty. It is a shell game, a con at best.

I agree that CS is over paid by alot of men. Howver I do agree with
it being paid on the basis regardless of what happens, as the parent of
a child you have a finicial responsibility. I think there needs to be
a re-working of how CS is calculated. And if you re my previous posts
I think you can figure how.

Since a woman should never be held responsible for her actions in our
society (check the average sentences for female criminals), it cannot
be the mother's fault that she lives in the ghetto and has 5 kids by 4
different dudes. And God forbid that the NCP gets custody and the child
has a decent standard of living.

Again I agree that in genral we always look for a reason as to why a
woman did something. And with a man, the reason is secondary.. That
whole way of thinking needs to change.

But at the same token... if as a guy you walk into a relation, and
know this women has children with different men, why wouldn't you
excerise your reproductive right to wear a freaking a condom, or better
yet not have sex with the dam girl. To ensure you don't add fuel to
this fire. Because you know she is capable of having more children.

If politicians really cared about children and poverty they should
allow income to be taken into account in determining fitness to be a
parent. If both parents make above a certain amount, like $15,000, then
income should not be taken into account. I wonder how many kids live in
poverty cause mommy spends the CS on rent for the ****-whole they live
in and sits on her ass all day.

Income should never be taken into account anyways. I think stabiliy
of a home. And I think if alot of cases were reveiwed the father would
gain custody. If the mother works 9-5 in an office, is home every
night... and the father say is a sales person who is always on the road
4-5 days a week. The father may make more money, but does that mean he
will provide a more stable household.

Special interests groups (read: feminists) lobby for increased child
support using the aforementioned uncollectable child support that is
"owed" to raise child support (or go to the current system after
alimony began to fall out of favor). This serves their constituency,
which is largely made up of divorced middle-class mothers. Whoppie!
It's for the kids! Not really, NOW is the National (socialist)
Organization for Women (but only us feminists).

This I don't know if is the case.. You could be right, I don't
dispute that.. but to me sounds more like an opinion then a fact. So
I'll take it with a grain of salt.

Most women remarry, so we end up with one woman being supported by two
men, assuming CS is paid and hubby works. Yea for socialism,
redistribute that money.

Redistribute the money why? The woman re-marries... So What. Say
you re-marry.. your household income goes up.. should you be expected
to pay more in Support now. No... Same thing here.. just because her
income level has risen, doesn't mean your less responsible for your
child.

I think there needs to be a re-working of how CS is calculated
period.

CS is largely term alimony for middle-class divorced women that she
doesn't lose upon remarriage and she never had to be married to
receive. The "kids" are simply the tool to get the money.

You know in some cases you may be correct. However I don't think
this is the case for the vast majority.

If you are on welfare you cannot support yourself, much less your
children. I drive to work everyday and see help wanted signs
everywhere, if you cannot at least get a decent job, you cannot raise
children.

As much as I agree with you, if you want a job.. there is a work out
there.. But at the same time I think there are circumstances to every
case. As a single parent of an Autistic child I can account for this.

I am fortunate enough that I do a majority of my work out of my
home.. Because do the unique care my son requires.. and amount of my
attention during his waking hours, there is no way I could hold down a
full time job (Out Of The Home) while trying to care for my son... And
still make the decent income that I do. Just not enough hours in the
day.

So before you start calling people lazy, investigate as to why they
are not working. There could be a valid reason.

Do you consider "That mean old alcohol just keeps forcing its way down my
throat, so I am 'disabled'" to be a valid reason? How about "But i've got
6 kids to take care of, so I don't hav e time to work." And the old
favorite "Me? Work? No way. Big Daddy Gubmint pays me so I don't have to
work." And one of the best ones "When we married, we decided that he would
work and I would stay home. So he needs to work so I can stay home. A
divorce shouldn't get to change our agreement!!"

the IRS needs to stay out of a lot of things that does not concern
them. The are the bullys of the government.
but anyway I agree this is a state matter not a government one. but if
they smell tax dollars there i bet they will stick there noise in it.

There is no best way to get child support payments that i have seen.
lock em up, no money and now we all suffer, The only thing i seen is
that the people that do pay support on time all the time get squeezed
for more in time. I dont think the tax payers should have the burden of
making good on child support. thats not fair to any one. maybe the best
way is not to get in that spot to start with.

Maybe making the person that needs to pay support work out mate if they
do not want to pay. maybe give them a must keep a job or start loosing
rights. I wouldn't want to tackle this issue. no one wins unless the
parent is making 100,000 a year then the cp never has to work and that
isnt right. hell maybe even making them get fix so they cant have or
make any more children?

wrote
.................................................. .........
hell maybe even making them get fix so they cant have or
make any more children?
==
I presume this would also apply to the CP who has kids she can't afford? Oh
yeah,
and the parents in intact relationships.
==