Socialism and Child Support

reply to post by dawnstar


So your solution is to force mom and dad to live together, even if they don't get along? And so who would pay for this big house?

Or you are stating that they should switch out the home which still leaves the question of who is to pay for this?

Why not just share custody and let each parent provide for their children according to their own abilities, financially speaking that is.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Proof? There is no proof - you are making a philosophical argument and supply no proof other than a bunch of bromides about the evils of socialism and how mandatory child support is a component of it. There are no facts nor proof in your argument nor explanation of your position by definition. By definition as it is a theoritical argument (I agree with you about socialism by the way, just not the connection to child support law that you are making).

Socialism and communism are both anti-family and anti-accountability. Both, to different degrees look to have the state take over elements of society and both view the family unit as counterproductive to their ultimate objectives. Both would be far more supportive of state sponsored child care. Socialism seeks to make this move incrementally with things like pre school starting at younger ages and free school lunches, etc and communists do it via the jack boot. The ends are the same. The means differ.

Forcing someone to pay child support is an action that forces accountability. Societies that are socialist, notably tribal societies do not have a concept of parenthood. The "it takes a villiage" notion applies and children are viewed as communal, rather than familial in many cases.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


many times, mom and dad are having a hard time holding down one household......
now they are responsible for two. as it is, even if dad does get custody, there isn't any money left after the child support to feed the kids, let alone have a place big enough to house them for overnight stays...
what I am suggesting is that instead of allowing this, let the kids stay at home, and let mom and dad switch out, one week, they get to live with the kids, the other, they get the small efficiency....or whatever way that it works best for them.
and, since each one now has custody of the kids half the time, well...they both are responsible for the half the bills...unless of course, mom has been bugging dad for ages to watch the k ids so she could work, and he wouldn't hear of it, then well, maybe it's a little much to expect her to enter the workforce and make enough money!!!


I realize that this wouldn't work for everyone, but I think it should be a solution available for those who it would work for...

reply to post by thehoneycomb
the link is above the quotes......sorry about that. thought that would suffice....

and I see it as being relevant...
you are making it out that all your problems is the result of some socialist plot,,,,
I am suggesting that it isn't. that it is more a result of our gov't running our economy poorly and rewarding the wrong behavior......not to mention having another avenue to enrich their buddies!!!

reply to post by dolphinfan

Socialism and communism are both anti-family and anti-accountability.

Agreed.

Forcing someone to pay child support is an action that forces accountability. Societies that are socialist, notably tribal societies do not have a concept of parenthood. The "it takes a villiage" notion applies and children are viewed as communal, rather than familial in many cases.

Forcibly removing a child from a parent and then making them support it financially is in no way accountability.

reply to post by dawnstar


Well it's creative I'll give you that, but no it would not work for everyone.

reply to post by thehoneycomb

....Many people think that capitalism is the root of all evil. Some of these same people are victims of the child support system and had their own children taken from them legally? I am guilty as well, but I got smart and did my homework and I have scoured the internet for results and surprisingly most have failed to make the real connection......

I have done my homework.

Why does the government now have the RIGHT to remove children WITHOUT evidence of wrong doing and WITHOUT a trial.

If you want to get back at an enemy now adays all you have to do is accuse them of child abuse and they will lose their children. This is based on evidence.

A vindictive neighbor (thief, drug pusher and self confessed murderer) accused three different families I know of child abuse and made the charges stick. They ALL lost their kids WITHOUT any evidence of wrong doing! In two of those cases she got custody of the children until other family members stepped in and rectified the situation. She was a lesbian who desperately wanted kids and neither she nor her partner could have them so they stole children from other people.

This is just one example there are plenty of others. I can think of at least a half dozen people I know who have lost or almost lost a child to the government or have been accused of child abuse.


Where did this come from????

Like the Food "Safety" Modernization Act it was a SETUP! (SEE my post HERE )

With food, the World Trade Organization ratified in 1995, allowing importing of food without inspection and worse in 1996 the international HACCP reg were adopted. Under HACCP the corporations were responsible for inspecting food. Government food inspectors no longer inspected food only paperwork and Government food testing labs were shut down.

RESULTS: CDC food borne illness data:
1993 - 489
1994 - 653
1995 - 628
1996 - 477
1997 - 504
AFTER HACCP was implemented
1998 - 1314
1999 - 1343
2000 - 1417
2001 - 1243
2002 - 1330
Yet FARMERS not HACCP are blamed for the increase and are now regulated. WORSE WTO was given complete control of the US food supply per "SEC. 404. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS." of the new law.

With Children the same sequence of events is seen:
#1.Create the problem
#2. Widely publicize the problem
#3. Orchestrate a "Public Outcry"
#4. Pass a law that restricts our freedom and removes small business opportunities from the ordinary citizen. -"unlicensed" un-regulated child care services.

Create the problem

THE "LITTLE RASCALS" RITUAL ABUSE CASE, IN EDENTON, NC

Summary:
In excess of 90 children accused a total of 20 adults with 429 instances of child sexual abuse in a day care center in Edenton NC. Among the alleged perpetrators were the sheriff and mayor. Allegations included a baby killed with a hand gun, a child being hung upside down from a tree and being set on fire. Nobody in town noticed a baby missing. Needless to say, charges were never laid against the mayor or sheriff.

Robin Byrum, Darlene Harris, Elizabeth "Betsy" Kelly, Robert "Bob" Kelly, Scott Willard Privott, Shelly Stone, and Dawn Wilson were charged with engaging in various sexual activities with children in the Kellys' day care in 1989. Bob Kelly and Dawn Wilson were found guilty of multiple charges of child sex abuse and given long sentences. Betsy Kelly and Willard Privott pleaded "no contest" and were released. The charges against the other three were dropped. Convictions were overturned on appeal and new trials ordered. The cases were finally settled in 1999 when all charges were dropped against Kelley....

As in other MVMO cases, the children initially denied abuse at the school. However, after repeated interrogations, they started to reveal sexual and then ritual abuse. Children were criticized or rewarded in accordance with the abuse content of their stories....

The Cases:
These charges relate to the Little Rascal's Day Care in Edenton. It is perhaps the second most famous day care ritual abuse case in North America (after the McMartin Preschool in CA.) The PBS program Frontline has produced a series of three powerful documentary episodes on this case, called Innocence Lost. 2 It showed that the various ingredients of a typical MVMO abuse case were present in Edenton:

* no physical evidence that any actual abuse or killing happened.

* hysteria by the parents, investigators and general public.

* lack of evidence which would have been present if the children had actually been abused.

* the alleged abuse happened even as parents were coming to and fro during the day; nobody noticed anything strange at the day care center.

* the children initially denied that anything "funny" happened at the day care; but the interviewers did not believe the children.

* after months of extensive interviewing, using what are now known to be manipulative, suggestive techniques, children started to disclose abuse events. This was assisted by communications among parents who also grilled their children

* all of the documentation and tapes of the children's initial interviews were lost or destroyed.

* testimony described a long string of physically impossible or highly improbable events

* nobody seems to have asked the logical question: how could 7 to 20 adults form a conspiracy and abuse children hundreds of times, without any child complaining or without any parent noticing something amiss?

www.religioustolerance.org...

Perhaps the saddest case was the The Fells Acres Nightmare where the innocent were kept in prison so prosecuting Attorney Scott Harshbarger could become State Attorney General and then run for Governor of Massachusetts. LINK


By the way this is the SAME Scott Harshbarger who found Acorn not guilty of any wrong doing in 2009 LINK

After these much publicized trials throughout the country there was the usual out cry for "the government to do something" and the usual organizations springing into being such as the National Association to Prevent Sexual Abuse of Children

The site gives a listing of laws:

....
SCHOOLS
Physical punishment is banned in all public schools in 29 states. In the 21 states which allow its use, many large city school districts have banned it.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 272,028 public school students were paddled in the 2004-2005 school year.

FAMILY CHILD CARE
In state-regulated Family Child Care settings, 47 states ban physical punishment of children by law or regulations.

&DE=[31BF89E3-A779-4D87-9C8C-51D3BFE50083]]NAPSAC

The real question becomes WHO BENEFITS????

reply to post by crimvelvet

The real question becomes WHO BENEFITS????

Not the mother, not the father and definitely not the child!

Thanks for a very informative post and I think we can all agree on that statement.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


You are just one giant ball of rant my friend!

I have a suggestion.. Calm your mind, quit ranting about everything. I understand you're upset over something, but you're not even holding focus and this is a thread that you started.

reply to post by Miraj


Can you point out the part of this thread were I am ranting please?

Lets set the record straight.

reply to post by crimvelvet


In my last post I asked the question

The real question becomes WHO BENEFITS????

To understand the orchestrated demise of the USA we must dig to find the answer to that question.


We can start the digging with a quote from Obama's "Science Czar" John P. Holdren, (Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy)

Holdren has co-authored works in the past that called for a campaign to “de-develop the United States” and said people need to eventually face up to a “world of zero net physical growth.” He also co-authored a passage that said:

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.” '

.... In their 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote:

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devolopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries."

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

grendelreport.posterous.com...

If you consider these two ideas "The fetus, ....given the essential early socializing experiences..." and "A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States....

Then the transfer of child rearing rights FROM the parents TO the state becomes necessary. Putting women in the work place instead of at home raising the kids (Feminism) also become "desired"

But what about our schools???

For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. "In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we're around average, and by 12th-grade, we're at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.
www.enterstageright.com...

... Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside • the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. In a 2002 survey, 16 global corporations complained that American schools did not produce students with global skills. United States companies agreed. The survey found that 30 percent of large U.S. companies “believed they had failed to exploit fully their international business opportunities due to insufficient personnel with international skills.” One respondent to the survey even noted, “If I wanted to recruit people who are both technically skilled and culturally aware, I wouldn’t even waste time looking for them on U.S. college campuses.”

...the U.S. ranks 21st out of 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in mathematics scores, with nearly one-quarter of students unable to solve the easiest level of questions....In 2000, 28 percent of all freshmen entering a degree-granting institution required remedial coursework
JunkFoodDiet

Has the degradation of our education system also been Planned???

The answer is YES!

Dumbing Down America by Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld
www.ordination.org...

"...Dewey's philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.

In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin -- that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the "social spirit" needed to bring about a collectivist society....."

If we do a bit more searching we find the "Father of Progressive Education", John Dewey was a founding member of the American branch of the Fabian Society.

So who are the Fabians??? (Also checkout the Round Table movement, London School of Economics and Rhodes Scholarships)

THE STAINED GLASS WINDOW FROM THE FABIAN SOCIETY gives the best brief explanation of who they are.

This is the stained-glass window from the Beatrice Webb House in Surrey, England, former headquarters of the Fabian Society. It was designed by George Bernard Shaw and depicts Sidney Webb and Shaw striking the Earth with hammers to "REMOULD IT NEARER TO THE HEART'S DESIRE," a line from Omar Khayyam. Note the wolf in sheep's clothing in the Fabian crest above the globe. The window is now on display at the London School of Economics (LSE), which was founded by Sydney and Beatrice Webb....

The Fabians originally were an elite group of intellectuals who formed a semi-secret society for the purpose of bringing socialism to the world. Whereas Communists wanted to establish socialism quickly through violence and revolution, the Fabians preferred to do it slowly through propaganda and legislation. The word socialism was not to be used. Instead, they would speak of benefits for the people such as welfare, medical care, higher wages, and better working conditions. In this way, they planned to accomplish their objective without bloodshed and even without serious opposition. They scorned the Communists, not because they disliked their goals, but because they disagreed with their methods. To emphasize the importance of gradualism, they adopted the turtle as the symbol of their movement. The three most prominent leaders in the early days were Sidney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw....

George Bernard Shaw wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society as well as many plays and highly articulate pieces of journalism. Therefore it is instructive to read what this co-founder of the Fabian Society wrote. ESPECIALLY since the much hated George Soros is a graduate of their London School of Economics.

SURPRISE bet you didn't know that tidbit.

Here are a few quotes from the "Real George Bernard Shaw"

“Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

George Bernard Shaw was a founding member of the Fabian Society:

EXTERMINATION OF THE “SOCIALLY INCOMPATIBLE”

“The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else.”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, “On the Rocks” (1933), Preface
“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …

A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910

KILLING THOSE “UNFIT TO LIVE”

“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

Unfortunately the Fabians were not confined to the UK.

"After WWII and the Nazis’ “supposed” defeat, you would think the world would find the Nazi philosophy abhorrent. However, when Fabian Socialist Sir Julian Huxley became the first Director-General of UNESCO, he authored UNESCO: ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY (1948) in which he revealed that

“even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

This was three years after the founding of the Human Betterment League in 1945 in North Carolina, one of the leading states in forced sterilization (in the late 1970s, Dr. Harmon Smith of Duke University said North Carolina had one of the most thorough involuntary sterilization programs in the U.S.). The League’s director was Alice Shelton Gray who worked with Margaret Sanger. Gray was succeeded as League director by C. Nash Herndon (Carnegie Fellow 1940-41), who became president of the American Eugenics Society from 1952 to 1955..... " www.crossroad.to...

The Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller foundations are all linked to the Fabians as well as the round table and Rhodes Scholarships.

What has been happening in this country over the last hundred years was orchestrated by these people with an agenda that was anti-American at the very minimum. I consider it anti-human since it demotes ordinary people to the status of cattle.

THIS is the TRUE face of American "Progressives"

To Henry Kissinger's 1970's quote

"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people; control money and you control the world."

We should add Control the children and you control the future."

NOTE on MONEY: If you have not read any of McFadden's speeches please do so.

"...Quotations from several speeches made on the Floor of the House of Representatives by the Honorable Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania. Mr. McFadden, due to his having served as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years, was the best posted man on these matters in America and was in a position to speak with authority of the vast ramifications...." www.afn.org...

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Child support is a sham.

Neither the courts, nor the State, has the authority to tell a person what to do with their money. Regardless of what we consider to be "moral" we cannot go around making moral choices for others. The entire concept is the antitheses of "freedom."

But, the majority of people living today feel as if they do have such authority.

Then the issue of the courts being able to whimsically appoint custody of a child, as they see fit, is an altogether different problem. No one has the right to take your children away from you. Even if they believe that they are working on behalf of the best interests of said children.

I really wish we could go back to the republic we once had.

reply to post by dalan.


WE CAN. Thats why I am trying to wake people up. It is up to them to find the truth and not validate the truth for lies. I knew that when I posted this thread, that there are more opposed to fathers wanting to be a part their childrens life then those who support it. It's the blind leading the blind here. But heres to hoping that these people will wake up. We are outnumbered here and thats fine by me.

there's two cases I know of ....
one, there's a married couple, dad works his 40+ hours and comes home to wife who is a stay at home mom .
well, mom gets sick and starts passing out, she goes to the doctor, and they are trying to figure it out. dad, well, he has to work to pay the bills, and child care is expensive...so, well, there is really not much of a choice, he goes to work hoping everything will be okay...
well, things aren't okay, the wife passes out, the kids go upstairs and starts a small fire.....

the other case,
family of five, no one works, a bunch of disability checks coming into the home. it's a few days before christmas, and all the kids are in bed...dad (it is believed, since this has happened before), is in his chair smoking his pipe and falls asleep. apartment catches on fire, burns christmas to ashes for the family, as well as damages the two adjacent apartments....
okay, here is how it all pans out in the end....
the fist family with the sick wife, well, their kids were put in foster homes, and they ended up paying out the arse for their care, and well, there were the many hoops of social service that had to be jumped through, as well as many visits to the doctor (paid for of course, by them) till they found the reason for why she was passing out....

the second case, well, one of the kids got blamed for the fire, and he did go into a foster home, but his siblings were allowed to stay home with mom and dad....no child support was paid from their pockets, since they had no income to begin with, the boy was soon home with mom and dad....poor kid!!

I don't think they care what is best for the kids. I don't thinks there's a grand ideological plot!! It's all about how gov't agencies can siphon the money in and back out to their friends!!!
GREED!!! and well, any system can be brought down low when greed is rampant!!!

reply to post by dawnstar

I don't think they care what is best for the kids. I don't thinks there's a grand ideological plot!! It's all about how gov't agencies can siphon the money in and back out to their friends!!!
GREED!!! and well, any system can be brought down low when greed is rampant!!!

You got that right, but there is a grand ideological plot, it is not just simply greed and no they don't really care about whats best for the kids. There are a lot of Non-profits or 501 c's that for instance do not pay federal taxes or keep good book keeping, because basically they move money around by donating to other non-profits. I can not explain all of it in detail and how the money moves, but heres and example.

If you were convicted of a DUI or domestic violence for instance, you would be court ordered to take classes, these classes cost money. Usually about $20 a pop, now once they have your money they can do whatever they want basically, because its a non-profit they don't pay taxes and for the most part there are no laws to insure that they have legitimate book keeping etc. Basically the money moves through hands and organizations and it is filtered through, it pays for elections etc and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the judge who convicted you also gets his fair share.

Now these organizations often times appear to be charity cases, they operate on the front that they are helping people, in some cases thats true, not all non-profits are evil but in most cases there are organizations that appear to be helping when politically they are doing just the opposite, so yes I have only scratched the surface on this and please forgive me for not being able to explain in great detail.

In theory though, if you wanted to destroy america or any other country for that matter, you would likely target the family, because family is more valuable to most then money and if you can destroy the family unit, you could destroy the country itself.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


You just ranted on about the rise of food borne illness..

I thought this thread was about child support. All you do is rant about lefties and socialists, and go every which way. Your every post is a rant.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


The socialist party does not speak for all socialists. I suppose I am one, yet I am 100% against abortion. I am 100% in favor of child support, however. If someone is man or woman enough to make a kid, they best be man or woman to care for it.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


I totally agree. However this OP does have one point.

The system currently favors the woman it seems.
Which is completely wrong.

It should be joint custody with joint expense sharing based off of percentage base of income.

I payed for 16 years of child support @ 250 a week.

I also had joint custody

I know my kid did not consume 250 dollars of food and electricity a week and was not wearing nice clothing either...

I had to buy those for when he came over.. Which was half of the time plus more....

He went to school out of my mailing address because his mother decided to uproot every other year...

The family court system is a man haters club....

reply to post by Miraj


I did huh? Could you please quote that text where I am ranting about food born illness and any other text which you claim I am ranting? thanks.