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
|
|||
|
|||
"You had the child, so you should pay"
"Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message t.com... This is an excuse that a liberal uses to justify their unjust policies. Most idiotic policies have some stupid non-thinking phrase, such as "For the Children" or "My Body, My Choice" as though their excuses for the injustices can be said in just a few words with everything else being ignored. "You had the child, so you should pay" is their way of saying, "Please don't bother me with your problem, your logic would be too overwhelming for me to handle" Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with: * Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their stead in accordance to proxy. The amount is usually determined by 'average' wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and all the poor people, and finding a middle. ie, he made $1,000,000 last year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per year. (poor man gets screwed again) * The fixed amount that is established cannot be retro 'fixed' in accordance with the ACTUAL income of the father (it would be unfair for the child, now wouldn't it?) even if the father knew nothing about the court order, didn't make as much as the courts 'assumed' he did, cannot in a million years pay back the amount with his education and abilities, and even if nobody bothered to tell him anything for the last 5 years, not even that the child existed. I have met some of the career prostitutes of today's age that collect on the child support. Women that have completely admitted that their goal is to screw, get pregnant with as many men as possible, and collect. Not to mention, they get an abortion if they come up pregnant more than once with the same father. Why? Because they get rewarded with a HIGHER percentage of the imputed income if each child has a different father rather than the same father, which translates into bigger bucks. BIG business indeed! I have met some of the children in today's age where child support is still being magically collected from the CUSTODIAL parent, and the child sees none of it. According to the liberal, these are just one in a million. According to the liberal it is just a sad fact of life that has to be, nothing to do about it. According to the liberal, men are nothing to worry about, just screw them. As a friend of mine put it regarding "child support": "It's the screwin' ya get for the screwin' ya got". Liberals are just simple suffering from poor brain rot. "Chris" wrote in message ... When someone tells a man "you had the child, so you should pay", what exactly does that mean and precisely how is such conclusion determined? -- The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access Great Speed, Great Retention 1 GB/Day for only $8.95 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"You had the child, so you should pay"
"Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message t.com... This is an excuse that a liberal uses to justify their unjust policies. Most idiotic policies have some stupid non-thinking phrase, such as "For the Children" or "My Body, My Choice" as though their excuses for the injustices can be said in just a few words with everything else being ignored. "You had the child, so you should pay" is their way of saying, "Please don't bother me with your problem, your logic would be too overwhelming for me to handle" Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with: * Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their stead in accordance to proxy. The amount is usually determined by 'average' wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and all the poor people, and finding a middle. ie, he made $1,000,000 last year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per year. (poor man gets screwed again) * The fixed amount that is established cannot be retro 'fixed' in accordance with the ACTUAL income of the father (it would be unfair for the child, now wouldn't it?) even if the father knew nothing about the court order, didn't make as much as the courts 'assumed' he did, cannot in a million years pay back the amount with his education and abilities, and even if nobody bothered to tell him anything for the last 5 years, not even that the child existed. I have met some of the career prostitutes of today's age that collect on the child support. Women that have completely admitted that their goal is to screw, get pregnant with as many men as possible, and collect. I have met some of the children in today's age where child support is still being magically collected from the CUSTODIAL parent, and the child sees none of it. According to the liberal, these are just one in a million. According to the liberal it is just a sad fact of life that has to be, nothing to do about it. According to the liberal, men are nothing to worry about, just screw them. Liberals are just simple suffering from poor brain rot. Much of the above analysis is correct, in my view. However, I don't think that liberals (or feminists) are suffering from brain rot and thus are incapable of comprehending the logic of the situation. The problem is two-fold. Number one element is that men -- for a variety of reasons -- have never been able to get themselves sufficiently organized to protect their interests, when those interests are in conflict with women. "In the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up." Number two element is that liberals and feminists don't HAVE to comprehend the logic of the situation. The U.S. media, with its pro-liberal, pro-feminist bias, never raises these kinds of questions with these groups. So they don't ever need to address them. A while back I raised with a woman acquaintance who falls into the liberal/feminist camp the question of why, if it was so important for women to have post-conception reproductive choice (notably via abortion), men couldn't have their own form of post-conception reproductive choice through being able to legally renounce their paternal rights and CS responsibilities in situations where there were unwanted (to them) pregnancies. At first she misunderstood (or perhaps pretended to misunderstand), and thought I was suggesting that men should be able to force women to have abortions, When she finally understood what I was saying, she got angry and fell back on the defense that the child needed to be supported. There was no acknowledgement of the notion that adult women should have to carry the sole responsibility for decisions that they have made unilaterally. The immature idea of closely defined official victim groups -- women being one -- is central to liberal, feminist idealogy. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"You had the child, so you should pay"
A very fine posting. Thanks for your well constructed thoughts.
"Kenneth S." wrote in message news:PgxHh.20715$as.7101@trnddc04... "Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message t.com... This is an excuse that a liberal uses to justify their unjust policies. Most idiotic policies have some stupid non-thinking phrase, such as "For the Children" or "My Body, My Choice" as though their excuses for the injustices can be said in just a few words with everything else being ignored. "You had the child, so you should pay" is their way of saying, "Please don't bother me with your problem, your logic would be too overwhelming for me to handle" Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with: * Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their stead in accordance to proxy. The amount is usually determined by 'average' wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and all the poor people, and finding a middle. ie, he made $1,000,000 last year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per year. (poor man gets screwed again) * The fixed amount that is established cannot be retro 'fixed' in accordance with the ACTUAL income of the father (it would be unfair for the child, now wouldn't it?) even if the father knew nothing about the court order, didn't make as much as the courts 'assumed' he did, cannot in a million years pay back the amount with his education and abilities, and even if nobody bothered to tell him anything for the last 5 years, not even that the child existed. I have met some of the career prostitutes of today's age that collect on the child support. Women that have completely admitted that their goal is to screw, get pregnant with as many men as possible, and collect. I have met some of the children in today's age where child support is still being magically collected from the CUSTODIAL parent, and the child sees none of it. According to the liberal, these are just one in a million. According to the liberal it is just a sad fact of life that has to be, nothing to do about it. According to the liberal, men are nothing to worry about, just screw them. Liberals are just simple suffering from poor brain rot. Much of the above analysis is correct, in my view. However, I don't think that liberals (or feminists) are suffering from brain rot and thus are incapable of comprehending the logic of the situation. The problem is two-fold. Number one element is that men -- for a variety of reasons -- have never been able to get themselves sufficiently organized to protect their interests, when those interests are in conflict with women. "In the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up." Number two element is that liberals and feminists don't HAVE to comprehend the logic of the situation. The U.S. media, with its pro-liberal, pro-feminist bias, never raises these kinds of questions with these groups. So they don't ever need to address them. A while back I raised with a woman acquaintance who falls into the liberal/feminist camp the question of why, if it was so important for women to have post-conception reproductive choice (notably via abortion), men couldn't have their own form of post-conception reproductive choice through being able to legally renounce their paternal rights and CS responsibilities in situations where there were unwanted (to them) pregnancies. At first she misunderstood (or perhaps pretended to misunderstand), and thought I was suggesting that men should be able to force women to have abortions, When she finally understood what I was saying, she got angry and fell back on the defense that the child needed to be supported. There was no acknowledgement of the notion that adult women should have to carry the sole responsibility for decisions that they have made unilaterally. The immature idea of closely defined official victim groups -- women being one -- is central to liberal, feminist idealogy. -- The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access Great Speed, Great Retention 1 GB/Day for only $8.95 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"You had the child, so you should pay"
"Kenneth S." wrote in message news:PgxHh.20715$as.7101@trnddc04... "Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message t.com... This is an excuse that a liberal uses to justify their unjust policies. Most idiotic policies have some stupid non-thinking phrase, such as "For the Children" or "My Body, My Choice" as though their excuses for the injustices can be said in just a few words with everything else being ignored. "You had the child, so you should pay" is their way of saying, "Please don't bother me with your problem, your logic would be too overwhelming for me to handle" Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with: * Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their stead in accordance to proxy. The amount is usually determined by 'average' wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and all the poor people, and finding a middle. ie, he made $1,000,000 last year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per year. (poor man gets screwed again) * The fixed amount that is established cannot be retro 'fixed' in accordance with the ACTUAL income of the father (it would be unfair for the child, now wouldn't it?) even if the father knew nothing about the court order, didn't make as much as the courts 'assumed' he did, cannot in a million years pay back the amount with his education and abilities, and even if nobody bothered to tell him anything for the last 5 years, not even that the child existed. I have met some of the career prostitutes of today's age that collect on the child support. Women that have completely admitted that their goal is to screw, get pregnant with as many men as possible, and collect. I have met some of the children in today's age where child support is still being magically collected from the CUSTODIAL parent, and the child sees none of it. According to the liberal, these are just one in a million. According to the liberal it is just a sad fact of life that has to be, nothing to do about it. According to the liberal, men are nothing to worry about, just screw them. Liberals are just simple suffering from poor brain rot. Much of the above analysis is correct, in my view. However, I don't think that liberals (or feminists) are suffering from brain rot and thus are incapable of comprehending the logic of the situation. The problem is two-fold. Number one element is that men -- for a variety of reasons -- have never been able to get themselves sufficiently organized to protect their interests, when those interests are in conflict with women. "In the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up." Number two element is that liberals and feminists don't HAVE to comprehend the logic of the situation. The U.S. media, with its pro-liberal, pro-feminist bias, never raises these kinds of questions with these groups. So they don't ever need to address them. A while back I raised with a woman acquaintance who falls into the liberal/feminist camp the question of why, if it was so important for women to have post-conception reproductive choice (notably via abortion), men couldn't have their own form of post-conception reproductive choice through being able to legally renounce their paternal rights and CS responsibilities in situations where there were unwanted (to them) pregnancies. At first she misunderstood (or perhaps pretended to misunderstand), and thought I was suggesting that men should be able to force women to have abortions, When she finally understood what I was saying, she got angry and fell back on the defense that the child needed to be supported. Indeed the child does need to be cared for, but by whose choice is the child here? There was no acknowledgement of the notion that adult women should have to carry the sole responsibility for decisions that they have made unilaterally. The immature idea of closely defined official victim groups -- women being one -- is central to liberal, feminist idealogy. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"You had the child, so you should pay"
On Mar 7, 5:23�am, "Kenneth S." wrote:
"Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message t.com... This is an excuse that a liberal uses to justify their unjust policies. Most idiotic policies have some stupid non-thinking phrase, such as "For the Children" or "My Body, My Choice" as though their excuses for the injustices can be said in just a few words with everything else being ignored. "You had the child, so you should pay" is their way of saying, "Please don't bother me with your problem, your logic would be too overwhelming for me to handle" Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with: * Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their stead in accordance to proxy. *The amount is usually determined by 'average' wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and all the poor people, and finding a middle. *ie, he made $1,000,000 last year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per year. *(poor man gets screwed again) * The fixed amount that is established cannot be retro 'fixed' in accordance with the ACTUAL income of the father (it would be unfair for the child, now wouldn't it?) even if the father knew nothing about the court order, didn't make as much as the courts 'assumed' he did, cannot in a million years pay back the amount with his education and abilities, and even if nobody bothered to tell him anything for the last 5 years, not even that the child existed. I have met some of the career prostitutes of today's age that collect on the child support. *Women that have completely admitted that their goal is to screw, get pregnant with as many men as possible, and collect. I have met some of the children in today's age where child support is still being magically collected from the CUSTODIAL parent, and the child sees none of it. According to the liberal, these are just one in a million. *According to the liberal it is just a sad fact of life that has to be, nothing to do about it. *According to the liberal, men are nothing to worry about, just screw them. Liberals are just simple suffering from poor brain rot. * * *Much of the above analysis is correct, in my view. *However, I don't think that liberals (or feminists) are suffering from brain rot and thus are incapable of comprehending the logic of the situation. * * The problem is two-fold. *Number one element is that men -- for a variety of reasons -- have never been able to get themselves sufficiently organized to protect their interests, when those interests are in conflict with women. *"In the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up." * * Number two element is that liberals and feminists don't HAVE to comprehend the logic of the situation. *The U.S. media, with its pro-liberal, pro-feminist bias, never raises these kinds of questions with these groups. *So they don't ever need to address them. * * A while back I raised with a woman acquaintance who falls into the liberal/feminist camp the question of why, if it was so important for women to have post-conception reproductive choice (notably via abortion), men couldn't have their own form of post-conception reproductive choice through being able to legally renounce their paternal rights and CS responsibilities in situations where there were unwanted (to them) pregnancies. At first she misunderstood (or perhaps pretended to misunderstand), and thought I was suggesting that men should be able to force women to have abortions, *When she finally understood what I was saying, she got angry and fell back on the defense that the child needed to be supported. *There was no acknowledgement of the notion that adult women *should have to carry the sole responsibility for decisions that they have made unilaterally. *The immature idea of closely defined official victim groups -- women being one -- is central to liberal, feminist idealogy.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Another part of the problem is the sheer numbers. Assume the population is divided 50/50 men to women No woman in their right mind would say CS laws are unfair (or 100%), as 50% of all marriages end in divorce and typically remarry, there are a great number of men who collect child support (as a new husband to a woman with kids), therefore THOSE men aren't going to complain. Yeah, they probably have their own support payments but those are offset by payments they receive for their step kids. The ONLY ones who are going to say it's unfair are the small percentage of men who are NCP's and don't remarry or remarry into childless marriages. That's why the laws are so popular. You aren't going to garner votes when you are pandering to 10-15% of the population and ****ing off the other 85%. It's all about money, yes..who gets it and who gives it.. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"You had the child, so you should pay"
Child support IS based on % of income in most states.see
http://www.lowersupport.com "Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message t.com... This is an excuse that a liberal uses to justify their unjust policies. Most idiotic policies have some stupid non-thinking phrase, such as "For the Children" or "My Body, My Choice" as though their excuses for the injustices can be said in just a few words with everything else being ignored. "You had the child, so you should pay" is their way of saying, "Please don't bother me with your problem, your logic would be too overwhelming for me to handle" Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with: * Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their stead in accordance to proxy. The amount is usually determined by 'average' wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and all the poor people, and finding a middle. ie, he made $1,000,000 last year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per year. (poor man gets screwed again) * The fixed amount that is established cannot be retro 'fixed' in accordance with the ACTUAL income of the father (it would be unfair for the child, now wouldn't it?) even if the father knew nothing about the court order, didn't make as much as the courts 'assumed' he did, cannot in a million years pay back the amount with his education and abilities, and even if nobody bothered to tell him anything for the last 5 years, not even that the child existed. I have met some of the career prostitutes of today's age that collect on the child support. Women that have completely admitted that their goal is to screw, get pregnant with as many men as possible, and collect. I have met some of the children in today's age where child support is still being magically collected from the CUSTODIAL parent, and the child sees none of it. According to the liberal, these are just one in a million. According to the liberal it is just a sad fact of life that has to be, nothing to do about it. According to the liberal, men are nothing to worry about, just screw them. Liberals are just simple suffering from poor brain rot. "Chris" wrote in message ... When someone tells a man "you had the child, so you should pay", what exactly does that mean and precisely how is such conclusion determined? -- The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access Great Speed, Great Retention 1 GB/Day for only $8.95 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"You had the child, so you should pay"
On Mar 20, 1:42�pm, "Mr. Anonymous" wrote:
I guess you've never stood before a judge to have him tell you the ESTABLISHED amount you are to pay each month. So, what happens when you get laid off? *Get sick? *End up in the hospital? You gotta keep paying, don't you? *The same amount, until several months down the line when they finally give you a court date to explain yourself with you paying an attorney by your side, with the possibility of going to jail now because you didn't pay the last few months, because you were sick. Oh, and wait. *What if the judge believes you can make more. *Guess what, that's not a percentage, is it? *If the judge can 'guess' how much he 'thinks' you should be making for him, this is no longer a percentage. Oh, you can SAY it's a percentage. *So, you make $30,000 a year. *Oh wait, I think you can make $75,000 a year. *So, we'll calculate 20% of that and give you a FIXED amount (it is a fixed amount, every time, they ALWAYS say how much you have to pay in a FIXED amount) based on that so-called percentage. Percentage is a lie, mister. *I assure you. *You have been tricked into thinking that child support is somehow some fair system of a minor percentage of someone's income. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to some of the postings on this board. *I rather believe you are probably someone from some District Attorney's office or some governmental entity that either makes a living off of other people's slavery, or are just simply brain washed. "fathersrights" wrote in message ... Child support IS based on % of income in most states.see http://www.lowersupport.com "Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message ct.com... This is an excuse that a liberal uses to justify their unjust policies. Most idiotic policies have some stupid non-thinking phrase, such as "For the Children" or "My Body, My Choice" as though their excuses for the injustices can be said in just a few words with everything else being ignored. "You had the child, so you should pay" is their way of saying, "Please don't bother me with your problem, your logic would be too overwhelming for me to handle" Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with: * Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their stead in accordance to proxy. *The amount is usually determined by 'average' wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and all the poor people, and finding a middle. *ie, he made $1,000,000 last year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per year. *(poor man gets screwed again) * The fixed amount that is established cannot be retro 'fixed' in accordance with the ACTUAL income of the father (it would be unfair for the child, now wouldn't it?) even if the father knew nothing about the court order, didn't make as much as the courts 'assumed' he did, cannot in a million years pay back the amount with his education and abilities, and even if nobody bothered to tell him anything for the last 5 years, not even that the child existed. I have met some of the career prostitutes of today's age that collect on the child support. *Women that have completely admitted that their goal is to screw, get pregnant with as many men as possible, and collect. I have met some of the children in today's age where child support is still being magically collected from the CUSTODIAL parent, and the child sees none of it. According to the liberal, these are just one in a million. *According to the liberal it is just a sad fact of life that has to be, nothing to do about it. *According to the liberal, men are nothing to worry about, just screw them. Liberals are just simple suffering from poor brain rot. "Chris" wrote in message ... When someone tells a man "you had the child, so you should pay", what exactly does that mean and precisely how is such conclusion determined? -- The Source For Premium *Newsgroup Access Great Speed, Great Retention 1 GB/Day for only $8.95 -- The Source For Premium *Newsgroup Access Great Speed, Great Retention 1 GB/Day for only $8.95- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You might want to visit his site. He pretty much knows what he is talking about. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"You had the child, so you should pay"
I guess you've never stood before a judge to have him tell you the
ESTABLISHED amount you are to pay each month. So, what happens when you get laid off? Get sick? End up in the hospital? You gotta keep paying, don't you? The same amount, until several months down the line when they finally give you a court date to explain yourself with you paying an attorney by your side, with the possibility of going to jail now because you didn't pay the last few months, because you were sick. Oh, and wait. What if the judge believes you can make more. Guess what, that's not a percentage, is it? If the judge can 'guess' how much he 'thinks' you should be making for him, this is no longer a percentage. Oh, you can SAY it's a percentage. So, you make $30,000 a year. Oh wait, I think you can make $75,000 a year. So, we'll calculate 20% of that and give you a FIXED amount (it is a fixed amount, every time, they ALWAYS say how much you have to pay in a FIXED amount) based on that so-called percentage. Percentage is a lie, mister. I assure you. You have been tricked into thinking that child support is somehow some fair system of a minor percentage of someone's income. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to some of the postings on this board. I rather believe you are probably someone from some District Attorney's office or some governmental entity that either makes a living off of other people's slavery, or are just simply brain washed. "fathersrights" wrote in message ... Child support IS based on % of income in most states.see http://www.lowersupport.com "Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message t.com... This is an excuse that a liberal uses to justify their unjust policies. Most idiotic policies have some stupid non-thinking phrase, such as "For the Children" or "My Body, My Choice" as though their excuses for the injustices can be said in just a few words with everything else being ignored. "You had the child, so you should pay" is their way of saying, "Please don't bother me with your problem, your logic would be too overwhelming for me to handle" Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with: * Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their stead in accordance to proxy. The amount is usually determined by 'average' wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and all the poor people, and finding a middle. ie, he made $1,000,000 last year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per year. (poor man gets screwed again) * The fixed amount that is established cannot be retro 'fixed' in accordance with the ACTUAL income of the father (it would be unfair for the child, now wouldn't it?) even if the father knew nothing about the court order, didn't make as much as the courts 'assumed' he did, cannot in a million years pay back the amount with his education and abilities, and even if nobody bothered to tell him anything for the last 5 years, not even that the child existed. I have met some of the career prostitutes of today's age that collect on the child support. Women that have completely admitted that their goal is to screw, get pregnant with as many men as possible, and collect. I have met some of the children in today's age where child support is still being magically collected from the CUSTODIAL parent, and the child sees none of it. According to the liberal, these are just one in a million. According to the liberal it is just a sad fact of life that has to be, nothing to do about it. According to the liberal, men are nothing to worry about, just screw them. Liberals are just simple suffering from poor brain rot. "Chris" wrote in message ... When someone tells a man "you had the child, so you should pay", what exactly does that mean and precisely how is such conclusion determined? -- The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access Great Speed, Great Retention 1 GB/Day for only $8.95 -- The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access Great Speed, Great Retention 1 GB/Day for only $8.95 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"You had the child, so you should pay"
As do I. Should I make a website too?
"Relayer" wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 20, 1:42?pm, "Mr. Anonymous" wrote: I guess you've never stood before a judge to have him tell you the ESTABLISHED amount you are to pay each month. So, what happens when you get laid off? Get sick? End up in the hospital? You gotta keep paying, don't you? The same amount, until several months down the line when they finally give you a court date to explain yourself with you paying an attorney by your side, with the possibility of going to jail now because you didn't pay the last few months, because you were sick. Oh, and wait. What if the judge believes you can make more. Guess what, that's not a percentage, is it? If the judge can 'guess' how much he 'thinks' you should be making for him, this is no longer a percentage. Oh, you can SAY it's a percentage. So, you make $30,000 a year. Oh wait, I think you can make $75,000 a year. So, we'll calculate 20% of that and give you a FIXED amount (it is a fixed amount, every time, they ALWAYS say how much you have to pay in a FIXED amount) based on that so-called percentage. Percentage is a lie, mister. I assure you. You have been tricked into thinking that child support is somehow some fair system of a minor percentage of someone's income. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to some of the postings on this board. I rather believe you are probably someone from some District Attorney's office or some governmental entity that either makes a living off of other people's slavery, or are just simply brain washed. "fathersrights" wrote in message ... Child support IS based on % of income in most states.see http://www.lowersupport.com "Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message ct.com... This is an excuse that a liberal uses to justify their unjust policies. Most idiotic policies have some stupid non-thinking phrase, such as "For the Children" or "My Body, My Choice" as though their excuses for the injustices can be said in just a few words with everything else being ignored. "You had the child, so you should pay" is their way of saying, "Please don't bother me with your problem, your logic would be too overwhelming for me to handle" Here is some logic that the liberal doesn't want to be bothered with: * Child Support laws are not based on percentage of income, but rather a fixed amount that more often than not is attributed to (only) fathers who had no idea there was a court session going on and it was placed in their stead in accordance to proxy. The amount is usually determined by 'average' wage for the area, which is calculated by taking all the rich people, and all the poor people, and finding a middle. ie, he made $1,000,000 last year, the other made $0, so the average income for the two is $500,000 per year. (poor man gets screwed again) * The fixed amount that is established cannot be retro 'fixed' in accordance with the ACTUAL income of the father (it would be unfair for the child, now wouldn't it?) even if the father knew nothing about the court order, didn't make as much as the courts 'assumed' he did, cannot in a million years pay back the amount with his education and abilities, and even if nobody bothered to tell him anything for the last 5 years, not even that the child existed. I have met some of the career prostitutes of today's age that collect on the child support. Women that have completely admitted that their goal is to screw, get pregnant with as many men as possible, and collect. I have met some of the children in today's age where child support is still being magically collected from the CUSTODIAL parent, and the child sees none of it. According to the liberal, these are just one in a million. According to the liberal it is just a sad fact of life that has to be, nothing to do about it. According to the liberal, men are nothing to worry about, just screw them. Liberals are just simple suffering from poor brain rot. "Chris" wrote in message ... When someone tells a man "you had the child, so you should pay", what exactly does that mean and precisely how is such conclusion determined? -- The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access Great Speed, Great Retention 1 GB/Day for only $8.95 -- The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access Great Speed, Great Retention 1 GB/Day for only $8.95- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You might want to visit his site. He pretty much knows what he is talking about. -- The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access Great Speed, Great Retention 1 GB/Day for only $8.95 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This one doesn't confuse beating ... | 0:-> | Spanking | 136 | December 25th 06 08:44 AM |
CT Minister SUES Cops who busted him for SPANKING! | Greegor | Foster Parents | 132 | December 25th 06 08:44 AM |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
AL: Court issues history-making decision in child custody case | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | August 3rd 05 01:07 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |