Men and Child support. What is the answer?

reply to post by Aeons


So far, this is all I am getting from your posts...

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Despite Aeons superb skills as a dinsinformationalist, the fact remains, that it is not the responsibility of a non-custodial parent to support the household of a custodial parent. Child support is for that child only.

One other thought here as well, if I may.

I know of many single parent-households where the mother has several children by several different men. If, let's say, two of three fathers are not paying support because they are in prison, is that suddenly the responsibility of the third father to make up the difference and pay the rent and utility bills for children that are not even his?

I will leave it at that for now. I have to do some grocery shopping, but I will return later this evening perhaps.

Originally posted by CobraCommander
One other thought here as well, if I may.

I know of many single parent-households where the mother has several children by several different men. If, let's say, two of three fathers are not paying support because they are in prison, is that suddenly the responsibility of the third father to make up the difference and pay the rent and utility bills for children that are not even his?

What father do you know who pays support for other children? That's really reaching.

There are set rates now. Support is based on earned income.

Originally posted by CobraCommander
We are still trying to sort it out, but our best estimate at the moment is that the state pocketed over $15,000 in child support from us.

That doesn't even make any sense.

Originally posted by CobraCommander
Don't pretend as if you are the only one who pays bills. I run a group foster home.

A few pages back I asked you if you actually had any children.

Your response was: "Not now, no. I did have."

Something is just not adding up.

reply to post by CobraCommander


You hate women. You make that clear. I called you out on it. You don't like it.

Your big block of text on me is amusing. I believe that is called an attempt to derail and distract with verbosity.

The nice thing about clarity - it is often short.

The answer is to eliminate child support in its current form. If the state is so concerned about children, then perhaps the state can directly fund the expense of raising children. After all, they seek control over every other aspect of a child's life.
Let the state pay for it, and make the state find the money for it, just like they find the money for wars overseas.

Now, if you think that I don't care about the children, I don't much care. Monetary policy and social engineering are complex subjects that require the understanding of economic as well as social factors. Not, EMOTIONAL ones.

Children can be resourceful, but fill their head with crap about why they are entitled but being screwed over, instead of ideas on how they might help momma feed them, and you are indoctrinating an entire generation to require not only the state, but someone other than themselves for their survival. This is simply stupid.

There is nothing wrong with children having to work. Work is not abuse.

reply to post by Stewie


Ah. Back to ye old work house for children as the cure all for you having to be a father.

Good stuff.

As the decendant of one of the people who was in that system.... screw that and the horse it rode in on.

reply to post by Komodo

Last time I checked, a liar costs more than I made in a day sometimes, per hour. How is someone getting milked for all they got supposed to afford to hire one, who wants to get paid wether they win or not?

reply to post by Aeons

You are insinuating exploitation. Shame on you.
I am proposing that we have not even begun to explore how the children can contribute to their own well-being.
And, I have some history as well dear, if you really want to go there.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Aeons

 

You are insinuating exploitation. Shame on you.
I am proposing that we have not even begun to explore how the children can contribute to their own well-being.
And, I have some history as well dear, if you really want to go there.

They are contributing. That's what school is. That's their work. It is very important work in a modern society.

And I will not allow fools and scoundrels to derail the very basis of freedom so that you may duck out on your own responsibilities.

Shirking off YOUR adult responsibilities onto children. SHAME.

reply to post by Aeons

Shame?
You don't have the grounds to claim that my position is shameful. In fact, it is a cop out on your part as you are appealing to emotional arguments.
The state is a hammer. This is a human issue. Don't ask a hammer to be human.

reply to post by Stewie


oh yes, what I always wanted, after raising my kids, and me and my husband footing the bill for them, having to turn around and partially raise your kids, just so you can avoid the responsibility!! ya, let the state take care of them, I don't want to....state= taxpayers...so well, yes, you think I should chip in and help bear the burden of your kids, just so you don't have to!!!
from what I've seen, in many cases, even if separated couples are doing the best they can, they still are needing taxpayer help, because well, to put it plain and simply, a couple who couldn't make it financially work out when they were together, doesn't stand a cold chance in hades of doing it apart!!!

I'm not even gonna comment on the idea that the kids should step up to the plate and do the man's job!!!

reply to post by Annee


you didnt check the sources then... the latest date in the actual post was 1992 the census bureau stats are from 2007 and 2008.

reply to post by dawnstar

Well, if you and your husband don't want to do the "man's" job, who is? We have a child support problem because these particular men can't/won't pay.
Fine, put them in jail. This happens, but the problem is still not solved. YOU are still paying because YOU have insisted that the state take care of them. Right?
So, don't complain, you asked for it.
My point is this. The state, which you claim is you and I and your husband and all of us...is not really "US", it is bureaucracy, a group of people that do the bidding of some very powerful people, not you and me, and us. Spending all of this money...empowering all of these people...the courts and the enforcement apparatus...only makes victims out of all involved, while doing VERY little for the children.
If you want the state to raise these kids, so be it. Paying the state to fund everything BUT the children? That is hypocrisy, and shows a lack of understanding of the reality.

Kids like to feel useful. They really aren't happy feeling like they are a burden, but you guys won't touch this subject in any meaningful way.

reply to post by bluemirage5


i am generation X. i married very young my youngest is 10yrs old.

So we have a board of men who so far:

Have compassion for Family Annihilators.

Teach their children that all women are vile money grubbing whores.

Want to take children out of school, and make them work.

Where is a flame thrower when you need it?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CobraCommander
We are still trying to sort it out, but our best estimate at the moment is that the state pocketed over $15,000 in child support from us.

That doesn't even make any sense.

what doesn't make sense?? that the state could "lose" child support money...well, sorry if this doesn't make sense to ya, but I probably could dig up the court papers to prove that is happens....
or the $15,000 part, do you think that is a bit much??
well there's a big story now occurring in my city....it's a really interesting story, would love to go into it...but well, let's just bring up the part that's the most relevant, although the whole story is relevant..but well,
if a couple splits up has two kids, just how in the world can one end up owing the other over $10,000?? she was working two jobs, and by law, the child support had to have been taken out, and well, they each had custody of one kid, so in reality, the support should have neutralized..the father was a cop, so well, that's a 30-40 thousand a year job or thereabouts....
and yet, she owed him over $10,000 dollars when he gunned her down in a parking lot of a convenience store.......
I agree, the current system is a disaster.....there has to be a better way....but well, if the taxpayers are gonna be paying out of the arse to take care of all these kids where mommy and daddy just don't want to do it, why don't they take care of all the kids?? or at least those sick kids whose parents can't come up with the money and are told the best way for the kid get the care they need is to split up and put him on welfare, or put him in a foster home???

Originally posted by dawnstar

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CobraCommander
We are still trying to sort it out, but our best estimate at the moment is that the state pocketed over $15,000 in child support from us.

That doesn't even make any sense.

what doesn't make sense?? that the state could "lose" child support money...well, sorry if this doesn't make sense to ya, but I probably could dig up the court papers to prove that is happens....
or the $15,000 part, do you think that is a bit much??
well there's a big story now occurring in my city....it's a really interesting story, would love to go into it...but well, let's just bring up the part that's the most relevant, although the whole story is relevant..but well,
if a couple splits up has two kids, just how in the world can one end up owing the other over $10,000?? she was working two jobs, and by law, the child support had to have been taken out, and well, they each had custody of one kid, so in reality, the support should have neutralized..the father was a cop, so well, that's a 30-40 thousand a year job or thereabouts....
and yet, she owed him over $10,000 dollars when he gunned her down in a parking lot of a convenience store.......
I agree, the current system is a disaster.....there has to be a better way....but well, if the taxpayers are gonna be paying out of the arse to take care of all these kids where mommy and daddy just don't want to do it, why don't they take care of all the kids?? or at least those sick kids whose parents can't come up with the money and are told the best way for the kid get the care they need is to split up and put him on welfare, or put him in a foster home???

So now we have a third story? You answered for CobraCommander?