reply to post by PrplHrt
umm....then, maybe it's more that people shouldn't be getting divorces they can't afford.
I've seen this with my own eyes, time and time again, a couple is having a difficult time making ends meet. Maybe they have a sick child who needs
expensive medicine, maybe those children are preventing one of them from brining home a wage. But, well, they just aren't making it, and they can't
figure out why. They are more apt to blame each other for "overspending" thant they are to actually sit down with paper and pen and figure out just
what their budget looks like. But, even it they do, they will soon figure out that there just isn't the money there to begin with, irregardless of
that little overspending here and there. So, they either are facing the reality that there isn't enough money, or they are squabbling over the few
morsels that they think is left over...doesn't really matter which. So, they go to social services, hoping for some help, because well, their child
might die if she doesn't get that medicine, who flatly tells them that hey, we're sorry, but you are making $.50 an hour too much. You should have
well more than enough to make ends meet.... Well, eventually, they either squabble themselves into a separation, possibly a divorce, or they face the
realitiy that the only way they are gonna get the kids medicine is to separate...
So, now, the family who didn't have the resources to meet the needs of one household...now has two!!! But, hey, they are now eligible for help!!
all but the wage earner now has access to more financial assistance then they've ever needed! But, well, since society, in their massive insanity,
couldn't see it in their hearts to give this couple a losy extra $50 a month to help with a child's medicine, now is paying for occupational
counseling for the mom, healthcare for the mom and all the kids, rental assistance for them, food, clothing allowance, transportation costs, ect...
The wage earner of the family could be throwing his whole paycheck into this, and it still wouldn't cover all of it! But, as it is, he's paying a
portion of his check, which well, isn't susposed to kill him financially. Of course, it would be nice, not to mention much more effective, if he
just drove across town to see her, and give her the support himself, while having a nice visit with his children, but well, too many men shunned this
responsibility in the past. So no, it has to go through this long chain of human beings charged with seeing to it that this money gets to where it's
susposed to go. Only, human beings make mistakes, payments get lost (or who knows maybe diverted to black ops or something) but it doesn't make it
to where it's going, and the guys account now stands delinquent!! up goes the payments since his account his delinquent. This is somewhat a true
story, by the way, the money was lost, only the guy just didn't have the paperwork to figure out that it was lost. Although, the wife did have the
paperwork. So, after sucking and losing over $3,000 they actually figured it out, and got it straightened out. But until then, not only were they
taking all of the guys paycheck but also most of his per diem (the money he was susposed to using while he was on the road, ya know, for toll roads
and such) and well, they were leaving him with a whole $20 out of his check.. When they threatened to take the guy's driver's liscense, well, both
mom and dad decided that they really couldn't afford a divorce, they say a lawyer, and well, some poor payroll processing company ended up paying
them back their $3,000.
What all this tells me:
First, our welfare system, at least how it was a decade or so ago, encouraged (forced??) couples to separate...
Second....it's insane that couples who couldn't support one household could support two!!
and third...the child support system, at least how it was a decade or so ago, is like a giant funnel funneling money to god knows where for god knows
what purpose....they will lose the money sometimes, and well, when they find what has happened to it, they won't be giving it back, someone else will
By the way, the inflation of the housing market has been what has kept the local governments going since bush decided to shift so much of the burden
onto them for the social services expenses of their county. it was easier to get you to accept the higher taxes if they were linked to what you
thought was an increasing value of your house....made you feel better than just saying, hey, we're increasing property taxes by 50% so we can pay for
the medicaid to our poor!!
Is it coincidence that the values started skyrocketing just at the right time to save the local governments? or was it more a planned thing, so
washinton could keep more of the tax dollars in washington, to use however they are wasting them?
It served their purpose after 9/11 to have the masses buying into this "the economy is great!" bit. even greenspan endorsed these the arms and
such...the taking out of second mortgages, ect. oh, ya, don't hear much about all those who actually bought the idea that their home was worth that
much and went out to get a second mortgage and blew the money....do we?? Wonder how many of them will be sticking around to pay the mortgages though
after the value of that home shrinks to a more realistic level.
I kind of think that what we are seeing is the result of policies that were put into place, just to keep the ailling economy running a little longer,
hopefully long enough to get those other guys into the whitehouse and congress...so th ey can take the heat for it.
They wanted americans overspending!!!
[edit on 26-12-2007 by dawnstar]