"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

"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.

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

"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.

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..

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

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.

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

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