It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Men and Child support. What is the answer?

page: 85
52
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Because it is offsetting the economy and its hard to find work.


It's hard to find work because of illegals. I have actually lost jobs to illegals, not union workers. In fact, union protected me from that.




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


If a family is in a shelter they have a lot more to worry about than being separated into different housing units. I mean come on...they don't even have the means to sustain themselves....but they're breeding.
What a joke. No wonder the rest of the people don't care about stupid problems like this. If you're going to breed at least put it into perspective. If you can hardly afford your own living...why the hell would you bring a child into the world. You'd have to be beyond stupid.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeform11
 


I explained earlier why this is happening. It is to lower the birth rate in America. Right now the birth rate in the US is 2%, they are trying to bring it to zero and beyond negative. It's not the parents fault. This stuff was happening before most of us parents were even born.

the reason UK sounds all great by todays standards is because in america, expectant fathers are losing their livelihoods everyday and confronted with, slavery.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Women's shelters are always well guarded; hotels are'nt. You do need security, don't you?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Job creation is boring, but if you are an up and coming entrepreneur you need any advantage you can get. That includes hiring and firing people, regardless of reasons, you might fire somebody cause they are creepy or they just cant perform their job and there is nothing wrong with that. As a business owner you would probably expect to run your own business and not let others run it for you.


Apples and oranges. A small business is not a corporation.

And if you are a corporate manager looking to get rid of some baggage, even in a union shop you can transfer them. Too many such transfers and even the union will begin to see that YOU are the problem, not the company. Union is not the steel vest you imagine it to be. Even union people CAN be shoved out the door if they are a slug, it just takes some time. As it should, to make sure they are not being unfairly branded. And again, especially in a big outfit. In a small store, it really doesn't matter unfair or not. I have let people go for the simple reason that I just did not get along with them. Not that they were a bad worker, but I just could not work with them, and there was nowhere to transfer them, so out the door they had to go.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Is that true....the birthrate in the USA is only 2% ?
edit on 21-6-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Yeah, thats good enough reason to get rid of someone.......an employee you have personality issues with or you clash with someone who you quickly find out is smarter than you and threatens your position in the company!



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by lifeform11
 



A more realistic and fairer approach is if both parents had shared custody where they have their child 6 months of the year each. It works for afew who are well organised, however, they have good communication skills and have private agreements between them that work well for both parents and their children. No child support changes hands where there is a 50/50 custody agreement.

The Family Court system automatically starts from 50/50 share basis however a majority of fathers refuse the opportunity and/or there are litigating circumstances or there has been Police involvement. Thats how it is in the UK and all Commonwealth nations.




You are still neglecting to admit the fact that the majority of fathers would prefer full-time custody, even without child support payments. So I would certainly think they would be willing to so the six month gig.

I have to disagree with that approach anyway though. Moving every six months is not a stable environment for the kids. I would pay support before I did that to them, so long as the mother was not a total dingbat.

But how about this? Summer vacations with one parent or the other, in which 3 months of support reverses?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


yeah it sounds bad, but there are u.k. posters on this site to, and i know for a fact alot of people do not understand the system here in the u.k., or use the child in such a way as to make sure the father is drained financially.

also some fathers look after the child for 2 days and pay full rate of child support because they were unaware about shared care. so i am simply posting incase people are not aware and it helps someone in some way.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


I dunno. I think if the CIA factbook was at .963, which is actually less than 1 % I could be wrong but my point was that that is about average, in many other countries there are negative birthrates which means people are dyeing faster than being born.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Show me and if I like what I see I will and I cant do much today, but that could change any day. But me personally have been through it and I know that there is nowhere to go unless you have friends.


I thank you kindly sir for your offer, but I am not going to reveal my identity here. And right now the political climate being what it is, I don't think our project is going to fly, so frankly, it would be a waste of money on your part. Don't tell the locals though.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


eh? i never said the child should have to move for six months. you said it would be fairer if it was 6 months each, i never even mention anything about 6 months each.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
If my father is now in his 90's.....you can do the math or shall I do it for you! Duh!

Society almost 100 years ago and during my generation were different however while growing up it was tough but most definately fun times! Sorry you missed it,

How could I tell you about it if I missed it,duh


No I'm afraid I don't watch too much of mainstream TV especially here in Australia because it's full of crap. The bombs stopped falling on Afghanistan after 9/11? Actually, the military did'nt go in to Afghanistan until long after 9/11. They went in to Iraq first, remember?

Oh was OBL hiding in a cave in Iraq


They went to Afganastan first,then all the crap happened with trying to sell the idea that Sadam had WMD,even though they had nothing to do with 9-11.

Remember?
The Attack on Afghanistan




You mention a married couple in your post. This thread is about men paying child support. Got it?

Then why dont you consider men who are seperated with the same consideration as those in a relationship,got it YET?

Not just you but the US government that will throw them in jail.


So you want to give up your right to vote? Tell that to Julia Gillard! Perhaps she can change the voting system from compulsary to voluntary just for you?

I have no idea how you came up with this from what I wrote,but since you asked,yeah why not make it voluntary,I`ll still vote if I think there`s someone worth voting for.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeform11
 


I dont think that anyone wants to drain anyone of their finances, it is because the child support advocates offer the sun moon and stars but only deliver a life full of misery for both parties. In any case the mother becomes convinced that she can actually do better financially from child support and it's just like that story of the forbidden fruit, the apple.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


I dunno. I think if the CIA factbook was at .963, which is actually less than 1 % I could be wrong but my point was that that is about average, in many other countries there are negative birthrates which means people are dyeing faster than being born.


That's because those countries are smarter than people are here. A negative birthrate will improve the living circumstances for children in their adulthood. Everyone will get a bigger piece of the pie so to speak.
If you subscribe to the ridiculous notion that our birthrate must continue to grow, you will be forcing this country beyond its means. It's about sustainability not about expansionism.
The baby boomers didn't realize this when they backed the Social Security Act, thus establishing the Medicare program. Now they expect my generation to pay for their stupidity. Ugh...why can't they hurry up and die already.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


Well you can always send the info privately if that helps. I am not a member of any organization. Would love to help, but only if you need help. And politics don't concern me, if I believe in the cause there is no place for politics. I think you are on to something great and I wish for you success.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


No, you have'nt been fighting for true equality at all. A majority of you men don't want equality. You just want your wallets and all the matrimonial assets intact. Most fathers can not have shared custody because either they refuse it, it does'nt work around their hours of of employment, there are litigating circumstances which may have included Police involvement.


Litigation including police involvement. Say, like, attempted murder? Get off it. You been punked.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


well i know the only reason some people limit the time the father can see the child, and then take them for child support, is to ruin the fathers life rather than personnal gain, i have seen it, and i have heard many cases from family and friends. so you might not think it, but it does happen. regardless i made it obvious, i was refering to the u.k. system for u.k. posters/readers in many posts, i am not arguing the toss over the american system.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana


Say what you will...Custody disputes are a by product of reckless breeding. People need to learn...and people learn best the hard way. At least their children will come out better than them. Without consequences people will never learn.


Sounds like the ideal plan for a Commie army of drones who hate family values if you ask me.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 


Ugh, your getting into borders and other politics. How many illegals are here right now? Millions.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join