A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I was wrong, Bob



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 29th 04, 08:40 AM
Mel Gamble
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I was wrong, Bob

I recently posted that oregun's new guidelines had upped the tables so
that, even with the new "parenting time credit", dads with standard
access would see no decrease in their support...I was wrong. I finally
got a chance to play with a few numbers and found that under the new
guidelines, and in a situation looking only at support (no childcare or
insurance) and with 1 joint child and the mother having 4 non-joint
children, with both parents making $3K/month and dad having 20% of the
yearly overnights, the father's support obligation will actually be $20
LESS using the new calculator than under the old guidelines/calculator
and $80 less than with no parenting credit using the new calculator.

Caveats: Every other weekend, plus 2 weeks in the summer and half a
dozen holidays is LESS than 20% - 4 full weeks in the summer will put
you over 20%. At ANYTHING LESS than 20%....the new guideline amount is
$60 more than the old ($455 vs. $395).

Guess I was maybe HALF wrong......but why is that last day that puts it
over 20% worth $720 ($80 x 12 months)? Maybe because over the next 10
years you'll almost be able to recover the cost of the attorney that GOT
you that last day....

As for the part I wrote about screwing those of us who have no
*RECOGNIZED* parenting time... I finally got my modification results
today. From $341/month at about $17/hr income, my support is going to
drop to $218/month at minimum wage....whoopee****. Under the old
guidelines, that same drop would have resulted in an obligation of $152
- the new amount is an increase of 43%....*F*O*R*T*Y*-*T*H*R*E*E*
*F*'*I*N*G* PERCENT!!!!!! OUCH!!!!!! Always finding new ways to screw
us - the governmental Kama Sutra....

It DOES appear they've done away with the old "her income went up so my
CS went UP" problem. Using the old calculator, running her income from
the ASSumed $1221 minimum wage to $7K in roughly $1K increments, my
obligation would have gone UP from $152 to a peak of $168 at her income
equal to $4K, before it finally dropped - at her income equal to $7k and
mine at $1221 - to $146. Using the same numbers in the new calculator
takes my support steadily-but-slowly down to $156...now if I could just
get her that $7K/month job....

All-in-all, from my point of view they took a LOT away from us and gave
back a little bit....a VERY little bit.

Like I said - governmental Kama Sutra....

Mel Gamble
  #2  
Old January 29th 04, 07:52 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I was wrong, Bob


"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
I recently posted that oregun's new guidelines had upped the tables so
that, even with the new "parenting time credit", dads with standard
access would see no decrease in their support...I was wrong. I finally
got a chance to play with a few numbers and found that under the new
guidelines, and in a situation looking only at support (no childcare or
insurance) and with 1 joint child and the mother having 4 non-joint
children, with both parents making $3K/month and dad having 20% of the
yearly overnights, the father's support obligation will actually be $20
LESS using the new calculator than under the old guidelines/calculator
and $80 less than with no parenting credit using the new calculator.


The Policy Studies Inc. CS guidelines the state uses were developed in 1986.
During the 1991 review Oregon started to deviate from the "suggested"
guidelines. PSI took the state to task in their 2002 report for three
things: 1.) the state starting to deviate from the "economic estimates" for
raising children in 1991, 2.) the state not fully implementing their
recommendation in 1994, and 3.) the state ignoring PSI's attempts to being
the guidelines back "into range" in 1998.

The state caved in during the 2002 review and did a bunch of "make up"
adjustments to the CS guidelines to fully implement the PSI CS guideline
recommendations. (This means PSI is running CS in Oregon, not the
bureaucracy.) So it is not surprising, even with a 20% parenting plan, a
parent would pay more CS at the same income level than they were required to
pay without a parenting plan under the old schedule.

Of course, what this all means is the CS guideline amounts are created with
smoke and mirrors economic estimates. The states' line of reasoning is the
previous guidleines were too LOW, because they didn't include the full PSI
recommendations, and simultaneously too HIGH, because they were based on an
erroneous assumption they included visitation time credits. Pretty slick,
huh? Too low and too high at the same time!


  #3  
Old January 29th 04, 07:52 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I was wrong, Bob


"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
I recently posted that oregun's new guidelines had upped the tables so
that, even with the new "parenting time credit", dads with standard
access would see no decrease in their support...I was wrong. I finally
got a chance to play with a few numbers and found that under the new
guidelines, and in a situation looking only at support (no childcare or
insurance) and with 1 joint child and the mother having 4 non-joint
children, with both parents making $3K/month and dad having 20% of the
yearly overnights, the father's support obligation will actually be $20
LESS using the new calculator than under the old guidelines/calculator
and $80 less than with no parenting credit using the new calculator.


The Policy Studies Inc. CS guidelines the state uses were developed in 1986.
During the 1991 review Oregon started to deviate from the "suggested"
guidelines. PSI took the state to task in their 2002 report for three
things: 1.) the state starting to deviate from the "economic estimates" for
raising children in 1991, 2.) the state not fully implementing their
recommendation in 1994, and 3.) the state ignoring PSI's attempts to being
the guidelines back "into range" in 1998.

The state caved in during the 2002 review and did a bunch of "make up"
adjustments to the CS guidelines to fully implement the PSI CS guideline
recommendations. (This means PSI is running CS in Oregon, not the
bureaucracy.) So it is not surprising, even with a 20% parenting plan, a
parent would pay more CS at the same income level than they were required to
pay without a parenting plan under the old schedule.

Of course, what this all means is the CS guideline amounts are created with
smoke and mirrors economic estimates. The states' line of reasoning is the
previous guidleines were too LOW, because they didn't include the full PSI
recommendations, and simultaneously too HIGH, because they were based on an
erroneous assumption they included visitation time credits. Pretty slick,
huh? Too low and too high at the same time!


  #4  
Old January 30th 04, 09:08 AM
jd hoeye
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I was wrong, Bob

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:52:44 GMT, "Bob Whiteside" =
wrote:

snip

i mean mass delete as in -: *.*


if you were to read the following citations...

418.147 Policy on absent parent. (1) The Legislative Assembly declares =
that the policy of this state is that, to the extent consistent with =
federal law, the temporary assistance for needy families program policy =
and practice shall recognize that an absent parent is often an important =
influence in the life of a child.

(2) Program policy and practice:

(a) Shall recognize that regular, frequent visits with absent parents are=
often in the best interests of needy children;

(b) Shall not interfere with the continuing relationship of absent =
parents with their children, whether the parents are temporarily or =
permanently out of the homes of their children; and

(c) Shall not restrict parents in adopting plans that they consider to be=
in the best interests of their children. [1987 c.3 =A710; 1997 c.581 =
=A737]

418.149 When child deprived of parental support of absent parent; effect =
of joint custody decree. (1) For purposes of ORS 418.035, where a parent =
is living out of the home in which the child resides, it shall be assumed=
that the child is deprived of parental support or care by reason of the =
continued absence of the parent unless:

(a) The parent visits the child in the child's home more than four times =
per week or more than a total of 12 hours per week; and

(b) The functioning of the parent as a provider of maintenance, physical =
care and guidance is not interrupted or terminated as a result of absence=
of the parent from the home.

(2) A determination that a needy child is not deprived of parental =
support or care by reason of the continued absence of a parent shall not =
be based solely on an award by a court of joint legal custody. [1987 c.3 =
=A7=A711,12]


of Oregon Revised Statutes wherein what an absent parent (ie: absent =
parent translates to, the parent who the law requires monetary =
remuneration - owes, is liable for, and is extorted for - CS...) the =
authority upon all other laws, actions etc. are based upon, give rise =
to...

in other words, within the above cited sections respective paragraphs, it=
is possible rationally deduce, logically extract, the conditions under =
which a parent is defined not an absent parent; and, that any parent not =
meeting the criteria of an absent parent; and, who does meet the minimal =
requirements of a present parent thereby meets the criteria under which =
no liability for CS may attach regardless of the incursion of expense on =
behalf on for the benefit of that parents child(ren) by any public or =
private entity(s) or person(s) as may arise for any cause.

the catch... yea, there's always one of those... active, personal, =
participation, presence and accessability are required! Imagine that... =
an active, participating, parent is not to be interfered with or subject =
to extortion, etc. Denial of comfort and/or affection to or from the =
other parent neither withstanding nor prevailing therein under any =
authority of law in equity or fact... UNLESS both parents make it an =
issue by raising and/or responding to questions thereto and/or of...

in other words marital condition is IRRELEVANT to the issue of a parents =
presence, availability to and responsive parenting interaction with their=
children unless both parents make it an issue by interactively raising =
the issue pre-emptive to, upon which, parenting is dependent; subordinate=
to; therefore, dependent upon.

Interesting: a court cannot make an order incumbering a child's access to=
it's parent no matter how long, loud or diligently one parent may so =
petition therefore so long as the other makes no response to that issue, =
and maintains themselves willingly and consistently accessible to the =
child(ren) - denial of actual contact by the other parent not =
withstanding... (there are some sticky wickets to field in that =
eventuality through documenting 'due diligence' (read: effort.)

remember this:=20
it takes two to tango, procreate and fornicate;
likewise it takes two to disagree, argue, antagonize and/or become =
combative with.

it's not real tough to get the idea.
it's no mental effort to understand.

put your children first; really, first; the child(ren)'s needs always =
precluding any need(s) the parent may have (read: parent(s) want(s) - =
children have needs) is all it takes... (not to mention all it takes to =
be a parent at all, single, couple, triad, quartet, etc. not withstanding=
(read relevant).)=20

Dissagree? That's your choice; OK by me; live with it; and step to the =
pay window, please.

In My Humble (NOT) Anti CS (read: pro parenting) Opinion.

Oh! Gee!



--
JD
--
If the Facts Fail to=20
Support Your Position
Manipulate the Data
--
  #5  
Old January 30th 04, 09:08 AM
jd hoeye
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I was wrong, Bob

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:52:44 GMT, "Bob Whiteside" =
wrote:

snip

i mean mass delete as in -: *.*


if you were to read the following citations...

418.147 Policy on absent parent. (1) The Legislative Assembly declares =
that the policy of this state is that, to the extent consistent with =
federal law, the temporary assistance for needy families program policy =
and practice shall recognize that an absent parent is often an important =
influence in the life of a child.

(2) Program policy and practice:

(a) Shall recognize that regular, frequent visits with absent parents are=
often in the best interests of needy children;

(b) Shall not interfere with the continuing relationship of absent =
parents with their children, whether the parents are temporarily or =
permanently out of the homes of their children; and

(c) Shall not restrict parents in adopting plans that they consider to be=
in the best interests of their children. [1987 c.3 =A710; 1997 c.581 =
=A737]

418.149 When child deprived of parental support of absent parent; effect =
of joint custody decree. (1) For purposes of ORS 418.035, where a parent =
is living out of the home in which the child resides, it shall be assumed=
that the child is deprived of parental support or care by reason of the =
continued absence of the parent unless:

(a) The parent visits the child in the child's home more than four times =
per week or more than a total of 12 hours per week; and

(b) The functioning of the parent as a provider of maintenance, physical =
care and guidance is not interrupted or terminated as a result of absence=
of the parent from the home.

(2) A determination that a needy child is not deprived of parental =
support or care by reason of the continued absence of a parent shall not =
be based solely on an award by a court of joint legal custody. [1987 c.3 =
=A7=A711,12]


of Oregon Revised Statutes wherein what an absent parent (ie: absent =
parent translates to, the parent who the law requires monetary =
remuneration - owes, is liable for, and is extorted for - CS...) the =
authority upon all other laws, actions etc. are based upon, give rise =
to...

in other words, within the above cited sections respective paragraphs, it=
is possible rationally deduce, logically extract, the conditions under =
which a parent is defined not an absent parent; and, that any parent not =
meeting the criteria of an absent parent; and, who does meet the minimal =
requirements of a present parent thereby meets the criteria under which =
no liability for CS may attach regardless of the incursion of expense on =
behalf on for the benefit of that parents child(ren) by any public or =
private entity(s) or person(s) as may arise for any cause.

the catch... yea, there's always one of those... active, personal, =
participation, presence and accessability are required! Imagine that... =
an active, participating, parent is not to be interfered with or subject =
to extortion, etc. Denial of comfort and/or affection to or from the =
other parent neither withstanding nor prevailing therein under any =
authority of law in equity or fact... UNLESS both parents make it an =
issue by raising and/or responding to questions thereto and/or of...

in other words marital condition is IRRELEVANT to the issue of a parents =
presence, availability to and responsive parenting interaction with their=
children unless both parents make it an issue by interactively raising =
the issue pre-emptive to, upon which, parenting is dependent; subordinate=
to; therefore, dependent upon.

Interesting: a court cannot make an order incumbering a child's access to=
it's parent no matter how long, loud or diligently one parent may so =
petition therefore so long as the other makes no response to that issue, =
and maintains themselves willingly and consistently accessible to the =
child(ren) - denial of actual contact by the other parent not =
withstanding... (there are some sticky wickets to field in that =
eventuality through documenting 'due diligence' (read: effort.)

remember this:=20
it takes two to tango, procreate and fornicate;
likewise it takes two to disagree, argue, antagonize and/or become =
combative with.

it's not real tough to get the idea.
it's no mental effort to understand.

put your children first; really, first; the child(ren)'s needs always =
precluding any need(s) the parent may have (read: parent(s) want(s) - =
children have needs) is all it takes... (not to mention all it takes to =
be a parent at all, single, couple, triad, quartet, etc. not withstanding=
(read relevant).)=20

Dissagree? That's your choice; OK by me; live with it; and step to the =
pay window, please.

In My Humble (NOT) Anti CS (read: pro parenting) Opinion.

Oh! Gee!



--
JD
--
If the Facts Fail to=20
Support Your Position
Manipulate the Data
--
  #6  
Old January 30th 04, 11:40 AM
Mel Gamble
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I was wrong, Bob

Yeah, the website mentions Policy Studies...

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
I recently posted that oregun's new guidelines had upped the tables so
that, even with the new "parenting time credit", dads with standard
access would see no decrease in their support...I was wrong. I finally
got a chance to play with a few numbers and found that under the new
guidelines, and in a situation looking only at support (no childcare or
insurance) and with 1 joint child and the mother having 4 non-joint
children, with both parents making $3K/month and dad having 20% of the
yearly overnights, the father's support obligation will actually be $20
LESS using the new calculator than under the old guidelines/calculator
and $80 less than with no parenting credit using the new calculator.


The Policy Studies Inc. CS guidelines the state uses were developed in 1986.
During the 1991 review Oregon started to deviate from the "suggested"
guidelines. PSI took the state to task in their 2002 report for three
things: 1.) the state starting to deviate from the "economic estimates" for
raising children in 1991, 2.) the state not fully implementing their
recommendation in 1994, and 3.) the state ignoring PSI's attempts to being
the guidelines back "into range" in 1998.

The state caved in during the 2002 review and did a bunch of "make up"
adjustments to the CS guidelines to fully implement the PSI CS guideline
recommendations. (This means PSI is running CS in Oregon, not the
bureaucracy.) So it is not surprising, even with a 20% parenting plan, a
parent would pay more CS at the same income level than they were required to
pay without a parenting plan under the old schedule.

Of course, what this all means is the CS guideline amounts are created with
smoke and mirrors economic estimates.


Hell, they're not even oregun estimates - they say right there in black
and grey that the economic data is national so there is no basis for
adjustment for interstate cases.... Don't the Federal guidelines say
something about the results being relevant for the particular area???
Seems like the cost of housing in certain areas (CA, Seattle, etc.)
would overly-inflate the results for most of oregun.



The states' line of reasoning is the
previous guidleines were too LOW, because they didn't include the full PSI
recommendations, and simultaneously too HIGH, because they were based on an
erroneous assumption they included visitation time credits. Pretty slick,
huh? Too low and too high at the same time!


Means they're gonna get you coming AND going....I'm still applying salve
to the spot where they slipped that 43% increase in..... As I wrote to
one of our local talk-show hosts, did you notice that the picture on the
front of the voters pamphlet for measure 30 is obviously a picture of a
couple of state employees (King K's Royal Guard???) on horseback about
to trample an innocent citizen? To my way of thinking, they couldn't
have picked a more Fruedian (sp?) print : )

Mel Gamble
  #7  
Old January 30th 04, 11:40 AM
Mel Gamble
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I was wrong, Bob

Yeah, the website mentions Policy Studies...

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
I recently posted that oregun's new guidelines had upped the tables so
that, even with the new "parenting time credit", dads with standard
access would see no decrease in their support...I was wrong. I finally
got a chance to play with a few numbers and found that under the new
guidelines, and in a situation looking only at support (no childcare or
insurance) and with 1 joint child and the mother having 4 non-joint
children, with both parents making $3K/month and dad having 20% of the
yearly overnights, the father's support obligation will actually be $20
LESS using the new calculator than under the old guidelines/calculator
and $80 less than with no parenting credit using the new calculator.


The Policy Studies Inc. CS guidelines the state uses were developed in 1986.
During the 1991 review Oregon started to deviate from the "suggested"
guidelines. PSI took the state to task in their 2002 report for three
things: 1.) the state starting to deviate from the "economic estimates" for
raising children in 1991, 2.) the state not fully implementing their
recommendation in 1994, and 3.) the state ignoring PSI's attempts to being
the guidelines back "into range" in 1998.

The state caved in during the 2002 review and did a bunch of "make up"
adjustments to the CS guidelines to fully implement the PSI CS guideline
recommendations. (This means PSI is running CS in Oregon, not the
bureaucracy.) So it is not surprising, even with a 20% parenting plan, a
parent would pay more CS at the same income level than they were required to
pay without a parenting plan under the old schedule.

Of course, what this all means is the CS guideline amounts are created with
smoke and mirrors economic estimates.


Hell, they're not even oregun estimates - they say right there in black
and grey that the economic data is national so there is no basis for
adjustment for interstate cases.... Don't the Federal guidelines say
something about the results being relevant for the particular area???
Seems like the cost of housing in certain areas (CA, Seattle, etc.)
would overly-inflate the results for most of oregun.



The states' line of reasoning is the
previous guidleines were too LOW, because they didn't include the full PSI
recommendations, and simultaneously too HIGH, because they were based on an
erroneous assumption they included visitation time credits. Pretty slick,
huh? Too low and too high at the same time!


Means they're gonna get you coming AND going....I'm still applying salve
to the spot where they slipped that 43% increase in..... As I wrote to
one of our local talk-show hosts, did you notice that the picture on the
front of the voters pamphlet for measure 30 is obviously a picture of a
couple of state employees (King K's Royal Guard???) on horseback about
to trample an innocent citizen? To my way of thinking, they couldn't
have picked a more Fruedian (sp?) print : )

Mel Gamble
  #8  
Old January 30th 04, 08:02 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I was wrong, Bob


"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Yeah, the website mentions Policy Studies...



Hell, they're not even oregun estimates - they say right there in black
and grey that the economic data is national so there is no basis for
adjustment for interstate cases.... Don't the Federal guidelines say
something about the results being relevant for the particular area???
Seems like the cost of housing in certain areas (CA, Seattle, etc.)
would overly-inflate the results for most of oregun.


That's why the state hired ECONorthwest to prepare their analysis of the
economic data. They came up with three very interesting recommendations.

1. The cost of raising children in Oregon must be about the same as the
rest of the counry because Oregon's median household income and per capita
incomes are within 5 percentage points of the national averages. Of course,
this assumption does not take into account the divorce rate in Oregon is at
or near the highest in the nation so the incomes in statewide averages do
not accurately reflect what actually goes on for divorces/separated/never
married family household situations.

2. The exisitng "simple methods of adjusting guidelines" should account for
differences in incomes and cost of living. Have you ever tried to get a
judge to vary from the guidelines using the "simple method" of viewing the
guidelines as guidelines based on assumptions and not de facto law? This
comment by ECONorthwest is just plain BS.

3. The department should review Oregon and US statisics using more recent
data. This is a shot at the fact the PSI guideline model process is based
on data from the last 2-3 decades and does not reflect current conditions.
What they implied was the recent economic downturn was not being considered
and the more severe impact on Oregon versus the national impact was being
ignored.

Despite what I personally consider three significant criticisms of the
process, this report was treated as supporting the PSI recommendations and
their underlying economic data. I read the recommendations from
ECONorthwest as critical comments rather than approval comments. Of course
the flaw in the process is the law only requires the local state analysis to
be completed. The law does not say the local analysis needs to agree with
PSI and, if not, force re-evaluation of the proposed guidelines to meet
local state conditions.


Means they're gonna get you coming AND going....I'm still applying salve
to the spot where they slipped that 43% increase in..... As I wrote to
one of our local talk-show hosts, did you notice that the picture on the
front of the voters pamphlet for measure 30 is obviously a picture of a
couple of state employees (King K's Royal Guard???) on horseback about
to trample an innocent citizen? To my way of thinking, they couldn't
have picked a more Fruedian (sp?) print : )


You are on the right track, but the facts need to be clarified. The two
guys on the horses are Lewis and Clark. The woman is Sacagawea, an Indian
princess who Lewis and Clark rescued from her kidnappers. So the symbolism
is the state's long standing desire to help women in distress and rescue
them from adversity - you know just like our family law and CS systems
operate.


  #9  
Old January 30th 04, 08:02 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I was wrong, Bob


"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Yeah, the website mentions Policy Studies...



Hell, they're not even oregun estimates - they say right there in black
and grey that the economic data is national so there is no basis for
adjustment for interstate cases.... Don't the Federal guidelines say
something about the results being relevant for the particular area???
Seems like the cost of housing in certain areas (CA, Seattle, etc.)
would overly-inflate the results for most of oregun.


That's why the state hired ECONorthwest to prepare their analysis of the
economic data. They came up with three very interesting recommendations.

1. The cost of raising children in Oregon must be about the same as the
rest of the counry because Oregon's median household income and per capita
incomes are within 5 percentage points of the national averages. Of course,
this assumption does not take into account the divorce rate in Oregon is at
or near the highest in the nation so the incomes in statewide averages do
not accurately reflect what actually goes on for divorces/separated/never
married family household situations.

2. The exisitng "simple methods of adjusting guidelines" should account for
differences in incomes and cost of living. Have you ever tried to get a
judge to vary from the guidelines using the "simple method" of viewing the
guidelines as guidelines based on assumptions and not de facto law? This
comment by ECONorthwest is just plain BS.

3. The department should review Oregon and US statisics using more recent
data. This is a shot at the fact the PSI guideline model process is based
on data from the last 2-3 decades and does not reflect current conditions.
What they implied was the recent economic downturn was not being considered
and the more severe impact on Oregon versus the national impact was being
ignored.

Despite what I personally consider three significant criticisms of the
process, this report was treated as supporting the PSI recommendations and
their underlying economic data. I read the recommendations from
ECONorthwest as critical comments rather than approval comments. Of course
the flaw in the process is the law only requires the local state analysis to
be completed. The law does not say the local analysis needs to agree with
PSI and, if not, force re-evaluation of the proposed guidelines to meet
local state conditions.


Means they're gonna get you coming AND going....I'm still applying salve
to the spot where they slipped that 43% increase in..... As I wrote to
one of our local talk-show hosts, did you notice that the picture on the
front of the voters pamphlet for measure 30 is obviously a picture of a
couple of state employees (King K's Royal Guard???) on horseback about
to trample an innocent citizen? To my way of thinking, they couldn't
have picked a more Fruedian (sp?) print : )


You are on the right track, but the facts need to be clarified. The two
guys on the horses are Lewis and Clark. The woman is Sacagawea, an Indian
princess who Lewis and Clark rescued from her kidnappers. So the symbolism
is the state's long standing desire to help women in distress and rescue
them from adversity - you know just like our family law and CS systems
operate.


  #10  
Old January 31st 04, 06:47 AM
Mel Gamble
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I was wrong, Bob

Another "yeah..."...

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Yeah, the website mentions Policy Studies...



Hell, they're not even oregun estimates - they say right there in black
and grey that the economic data is national so there is no basis for
adjustment for interstate cases.... Don't the Federal guidelines say
something about the results being relevant for the particular area???
Seems like the cost of housing in certain areas (CA, Seattle, etc.)
would overly-inflate the results for most of oregun.


That's why the state hired ECONorthwest to prepare their analysis of the
economic data. They came up with three very interesting recommendations.

1. The cost of raising children in Oregon must be about the same as the
rest of the counry because Oregon's median household income and per capita
incomes are within 5 percentage points of the national averages. Of course,
this assumption does not take into account the divorce rate in Oregon is at
or near the highest in the nation so the incomes in statewide averages do
not accurately reflect what actually goes on for divorces/separated/never
married family household situations.

2. The exisitng "simple methods of adjusting guidelines" should account for
differences in incomes and cost of living. Have you ever tried to get a
judge to vary from the guidelines using the "simple method" of viewing the
guidelines as guidelines based on assumptions and not de facto law? This
comment by ECONorthwest is just plain BS.

3. The department should review Oregon and US statisics using more recent
data. This is a shot at the fact the PSI guideline model process is based
on data from the last 2-3 decades and does not reflect current conditions.
What they implied was the recent economic downturn was not being considered
and the more severe impact on Oregon versus the national impact was being
ignored.

Despite what I personally consider three significant criticisms of the
process, this report was treated as supporting the PSI recommendations and
their underlying economic data. I read the recommendations from
ECONorthwest as critical comments rather than approval comments. Of course
the flaw in the process is the law only requires the local state analysis to
be completed. The law does not say the local analysis needs to agree with
PSI and, if not, force re-evaluation of the proposed guidelines to meet
local state conditions.


Like those "public input" meetings last fall - I doubt if anybody ever
put those tapes in "play" mode after the meetings. Looks good to
"solicit public input" and hold town-halls...until you realize it's all
for show and the public employees running the thing aren't thinking
about anything more earth-shatterring than next-year's raise.

At least it looks like I may have gotten my night job to carry me
through until I can go self-employed in a mostly-cash business I've been
thinking about for a while. But I'm still burning over that 43%...

Means they're gonna get you coming AND going....I'm still applying salve
to the spot where they slipped that 43% increase in..... As I wrote to
one of our local talk-show hosts, did you notice that the picture on the
front of the voters pamphlet for measure 30 is obviously a picture of a
couple of state employees (King K's Royal Guard???) on horseback about
to trample an innocent citizen? To my way of thinking, they couldn't
have picked a more Fruedian (sp?) print : )


You are on the right track, but the facts need to be clarified. The two
guys on the horses are Lewis and Clark. The woman is Sacagawea, an Indian
princess who Lewis and Clark rescued from her kidnappers. So the symbolism
is the state's long standing desire to help women in distress and rescue
them from adversity - you know just like our family law and CS systems
operate.


It should have been a man standing their, trying to protect himself and
his child from the gestapo...

Thanks for your usual insight into what the state has been up to... : )

Mel Gamble
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
learning to talk wrong Marie Twins & Triplets 6 July 19th 04 08:57 PM
ICAN and The Pink Kit: a dark side (Wintergreen is wrong) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 January 30th 04 10:45 PM
Judge wrong to split teen & family teen wanted out FW: Fern5827 Spanking 0 January 18th 04 05:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.