Just an observation...

DB wrote:
wrote in

Why shouldn't a man who leaves a woman with children have to pay?

Nobody is contesting men should not contribute toward their kid's well
being, it's the extortionate rates and collection methods we are subject too
that is the source of conflict. Feed the kids yes, but buy the house, the
cars, and spending money for the ex, no ****ing way Jose!!!!!!

I agree the system of child support in America is bad for both the
custodial and the noncustodial parent.

But there is a simple solution ... which the politicians won't even
consider.

In Sweden, the mother is paid the child support due, and then it is
collected from the father.

Now, why didn't we think of that?

Because in American society, everybody hates mothers, that's why.

wrote in message
ups.com...

DB wrote:
wrote in

Why shouldn't a man who leaves a woman with children have to pay?

Nobody is contesting men should not contribute toward their kid's well
being, it's the extortionate rates and collection methods we are subject
too
that is the source of conflict. Feed the kids yes, but buy the house, the
cars, and spending money for the ex, no ****ing way Jose!!!!!!

I agree the system of child support in America is bad for both the
custodial and the noncustodial parent.

But there is a simple solution ... which the politicians won't even
consider.

In Sweden, the mother is paid the child support due, and then it is
collected from the father.

Now, why didn't we think of that?

Because in American society, everybody hates mothers, that's why.

Are you saying that in Sweden mothers don't have to support their children
also? Or is t he mother only paid half the costs of raising the child, and
the other half is collected from the father? What does the government do if
the mother has not clue who the father is? Or if the mother has 7 children
by 7 different fathers?

"teachrmama" wrote in

I agree the system of child support in America is bad for both the
custodial and the noncustodial parent.

But there is a simple solution ... which the politicians won't even
consider.

In Sweden, the mother is paid the child support due, and then it is
collected from the father.

Now, why didn't we think of that?

Because in American society, everybody hates mothers, that's why.

Are you saying that in Sweden mothers don't have to support their
children also? Or is t he mother only paid half the costs of raising the
child, and the other half is collected from the father? What does the
government do if the mother has not clue who the father is? Or if the
mother has 7 children by 7 different fathers?

Some info he http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive.../gay051103.htm

We only hate the mothers that stick there hand out and take more than what
they deserve!

wrote:
Great post, custodialparent.

Most custodial Moms are like you: fair-minded, hard-working and
concerned. My former wife was a great Mom to our kids who always gave
me time with them.

Nor is the problem "government". Men and women need "government"
because absent "government" in the care of children, children are
exploited.

The problem seems to be that noncustodial fathers are being exploited
and (in Susan Faludi's words, referring to the way in which men support
powerful men who exploit them) Stiffed by "father's rights"
organizations that in a Fascist style teach the father to blame the
Other for his problems.

I just admitted to myself that "this sucks all the way down, but the
kids shouldn't have to pay for our mistakes", and I ponied-up since I
had more earning power than my ex-wife. My finances never recovered,
and I never got to be a rich white man although I worked my ass off.
Boo ****ing hoo, because my youngest son graduated cum laude from
university recently.

It's like the black guy, whathisname, who tells Tom Cruise in Jerry
Maguire, boo hoo I can't see my daughter, so why'd you leave their
mother, I had her, she was OK.

Why shouldn't a man who leaves a woman with children have to pay?

When 70% of divorces are initiated by women? What about a man who is
left by his wife, because she is feeling "unfulfilled"?


Of course, many men here are complaining about denial of visitation, a
more serious issue which I didn't have to experience. But given the
foul way in which I've heard many guys talk about women amongst
themselves over beers at Hooters, I can only speculate that maybe some
gals decide that the kids are better off without being taken out for
lunch by some hungover Dad at some bar or perhaps Hooters.

"Hi, can I take your order? Oh, how sweet! What's your name, little
guy?"
"Andrew. Who tore your T-shirt, lady?"
"Oh, it's supposed to be that way, Andrew!"
"But I can see your belly button. Daddy, I want to go to McDonald's"
[Daddy] "Hmph snrrp shurrup. Bring me a beer"

Oh, I get it. You're an ignoramus.

Try meeting men in places other than Hooters. If that's where you're
spending all of your time, guess what kind of men you're going to be
exposed to?

- Ron ^*^

DB wrote:
"custodialparent27" wrote in

child that he hasn't seen for years. He has been harrassed and
penalized and such by the family courts for a long time. I have seen
the Texas Attorney General's Office garnish his wages and take his
income tax refunds to pay support for this child.

Yes, the big & almighty powerful State's Attorney General has wielded their
vast authority to collect money for a woman looking for a hand out! Amazing
that this high office has been reduced to the lowly ranks of a collections
agency. LOL



Ah, but a collection agency would have wet dreams about the power the AG
wields when it comes to child support.
To custodialparent, yes there is a lot of venom. Keep in mind, however,
that you're talking to people who are dealing with a system that calls
them "deadbeats" on a regular basis. CSE is a system that knows neither
pity nor mercy nor logic. Now, I don't know about you, but I think I'd
have a little bit of venom in my system.

wrote:


But there is a simple solution ... which the politicians won't even
consider.

In Sweden, the mother is paid the child support due, and then it is
collected from the father.

Now, why didn't we think of that?

Because in American society, everybody hates mothers, that's why.


That's exactly how the system works in the US. It's called Child
Support Enforcement and welfare. The problem is the extorbatant rates
demanded by the government in terms of interest.
And as to the statement "everybody hates mothers" in America. I invite
you to take a mother and a father in America and have them go for the
same governmental support services and see who gets them faster. Then
try to run your weak "everybody hates mothers" smack.

"John Meyer" wrote in

Ah, but a collection agency would have wet dreams about the power the AG
wields when it comes to child support.

AT the end of a game, a Pawn and King go back into the same box!
Really, doesn't the mighty office of the AG have better things to do than
chase down dead broke fathers?


To custodialparent, yes there is a lot of venom. Keep in mind, however,
that you're talking to people who are dealing with a system that calls
them "deadbeats" on a regular basis.

Here's a new word I just learned this afternoon from a converstaion with her
Lawyer, according to him I'm nothing more than a real Asshole that is only
trying to worm my way out of paying her $55,000.
If he could only see my past bank statements! $55 bucks is my typical
running balance after paying the bills.


CSE is a system that knows neither
pity nor mercy nor logic. Now, I don't know about you, but I think I'd
have a little bit of venom in my system.

yes, dealing with lifeless morons can be taxing, something like the IRS! LOL

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in

I agree the system of child support in America is bad for both the
custodial and the noncustodial parent.

But there is a simple solution ... which the politicians won't even
consider.

In Sweden, the mother is paid the child support due, and then it is
collected from the father.

Now, why didn't we think of that?

Because in American society, everybody hates mothers, that's why.

Are you saying that in Sweden mothers don't have to support their
children also? Or is t he mother only paid half the costs of raising the
child, and the other half is collected from the father? What does the
government do if the mother has not clue who the father is? Or if the
mother has 7 children by 7 different fathers?

Some info he http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive.../gay051103.htm

We only hate the mothers that stick there hand out and take more than what
they deserve!

We only hate the undeserving
We only hate the poor
Who won't get off their ass and start serving
The deserving rich, of which there are many more

We only hate the people
Who have done so very wrong
Who sit around and around and around
And smoke dope all day long

As we would dearly love to do

But when we hate we hate we hate
And it feels so good good good
It is like food food food
Because we have been cheated down deep deep deep

"John Meyer" wrote in message
news
DB wrote:
"custodialparent27" wrote in

child that he hasn't seen for years. He has been harrassed and
penalized and such by the family courts for a long time. I have seen
the Texas Attorney General's Office garnish his wages and take his
income tax refunds to pay support for this child.

Yes, the big & almighty powerful State's Attorney General has wielded
their
vast authority to collect money for a woman looking for a hand out!
Amazing
that this high office has been reduced to the lowly ranks of a
collections
agency. LOL



Ah, but a collection agency would have wet dreams about the power the AG
wields when it comes to child support.
To custodialparent, yes there is a lot of venom. Keep in mind, however,
that you're talking to people who are dealing with a system that calls
them "deadbeats" on a regular basis. CSE is a system that knows neither
pity nor mercy nor logic.

You forgot "morality".

Now, I don't know about you, but I think I'd
have a little bit of venom in my system.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...

There's a reason why the system is so biased against fathers. That
reason is that men have not yet found a way to stand up for themselves
in
issues where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict. As Warren
Farrell says, "in the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up."

At one point in my own divorce/CS hell I thought Warren Farrell made a
good
point with the above quote.

But with the after-thought of actually getting to the end of the
divorce/CS
confrontations, in which I lost 100% of the time over 16 years on every
financial dispute, I believe his quote is just a catchy phrase designed to
get men to recognize how feminism changed the landscape years ago.

My personal experience is - It doesn't matter whether you show up or not
with the facts and truth on your side with clean hands. There is no way a
father is going to win in family court even when the truth is on their
side.

The judicial bias against men is far more destructive than anything the
feminists attempted to do to advance their agenda.

It goes beyond that. The ruling in virtually every case is the same. Which
begs the question: Why even have a "family court" in the first place?