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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Letter I intend to send to sponsor/co-sponsors of The Child Support Enforcement Act of 2005
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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Letter I intend to send to sponsor/co-sponsors of The Child Support Enforcement Act of 2005
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Letter I intend to send to sponsor/co-sponsors of The Child Support Enforcement Act of 2005
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Letter I intend to send to sponsor/co-sponsors of The Child Support Enforcement Act of 2005
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? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Letter I intend to send to sponsor/co-sponsors of The Child Support Enforcement Act of 2005
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. == |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |