PDA

View Full Version : Re: Driving licenses and child support. Your opinions please.


Phil #3
August 20th 03, 01:30 PM
You named the problem exactly: "Typical American politics."
Nothing is so bad that the gummit couldn't make worse... and it always does.

Phil #3

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> I am sure it is no surprise to some that you could loose your driving
> license in some or most American states if you fail to pay child support.
I
> went down to the local DMV and read the driver manual and saw it myself.
>
> I think in my own opinion that is the most retarded statute I have ever
> heard of. That's like biting the hand that feeds you. Might as well take
> away the paying spouses right to work and then scratch our heads wondering
> why child support has stopped coming in. Typical American politics. Most
> jobs require that you have some means of transportation for employment.
> Unless you are living in a metropolis that has a mass-transit system,
there
> is no possibility of making up for back-child support (let alone ANY child
> support what so ever). It is an invitation to poverty for the paying
spouse
> and the child thanks to the state and its over-zealous and ignorant
> statues. I, myself, live far in the desert and MUST rely on my car to get
> me to work or anywhere. There are no taxis, busses, or trains. Not even
> traffic for several miles. Should I loose my driving license, I would
surly
> parish. I would not know what to do. A bicycle would get me to work in
five
> hours. That would be out of the question. Good thing that I don't owe
child
> support.
>
> I am interested in other reader's opinions in the outrageous statute.
> Thanks for reading.
>
> Guss
>

Phil #3
August 20th 03, 01:30 PM
You named the problem exactly: "Typical American politics."
Nothing is so bad that the gummit couldn't make worse... and it always does.

Phil #3

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> I am sure it is no surprise to some that you could loose your driving
> license in some or most American states if you fail to pay child support.
I
> went down to the local DMV and read the driver manual and saw it myself.
>
> I think in my own opinion that is the most retarded statute I have ever
> heard of. That's like biting the hand that feeds you. Might as well take
> away the paying spouses right to work and then scratch our heads wondering
> why child support has stopped coming in. Typical American politics. Most
> jobs require that you have some means of transportation for employment.
> Unless you are living in a metropolis that has a mass-transit system,
there
> is no possibility of making up for back-child support (let alone ANY child
> support what so ever). It is an invitation to poverty for the paying
spouse
> and the child thanks to the state and its over-zealous and ignorant
> statues. I, myself, live far in the desert and MUST rely on my car to get
> me to work or anywhere. There are no taxis, busses, or trains. Not even
> traffic for several miles. Should I loose my driving license, I would
surly
> parish. I would not know what to do. A bicycle would get me to work in
five
> hours. That would be out of the question. Good thing that I don't owe
child
> support.
>
> I am interested in other reader's opinions in the outrageous statute.
> Thanks for reading.
>
> Guss
>

~August
August 20th 03, 02:40 PM
"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> I am sure it is no surprise to some that you could loose your driving
> license in some or most American states if you fail to pay child support.
I
> went down to the local DMV and read the driver manual and saw it myself.
>
> I think in my own opinion that is the most retarded statute I have ever
> heard of. That's like biting the hand that feeds you. Might as well take
> away the paying spouses right to work and then scratch our heads wondering
> why child support has stopped coming in. Typical American politics. Most
> jobs require that you have some means of transportation for employment.
> Unless you are living in a metropolis that has a mass-transit system,
there
> is no possibility of making up for back-child support (let alone ANY child
> support what so ever). It is an invitation to poverty for the paying
spouse
> and the child thanks to the state and its over-zealous and ignorant
> statues. I, myself, live far in the desert and MUST rely on my car to get
> me to work or anywhere. There are no taxis, busses, or trains. Not even
> traffic for several miles. Should I loose my driving license, I would
surly
> parish. I would not know what to do. A bicycle would get me to work in
five
> hours. That would be out of the question. Good thing that I don't owe
child
> support.
>
> I am interested in other reader's opinions in the outrageous statute.
> Thanks for reading.

Well, i am sure the intention was to make the threat so that the paying
parent didnt let it go that far. It probably works in some cases. But when
the threat is made good, it makes for a situation that not only does not
resolve the original problem (non-payment) but makes the original problem
harder to resolve.

~August

~August
August 20th 03, 02:40 PM
"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> I am sure it is no surprise to some that you could loose your driving
> license in some or most American states if you fail to pay child support.
I
> went down to the local DMV and read the driver manual and saw it myself.
>
> I think in my own opinion that is the most retarded statute I have ever
> heard of. That's like biting the hand that feeds you. Might as well take
> away the paying spouses right to work and then scratch our heads wondering
> why child support has stopped coming in. Typical American politics. Most
> jobs require that you have some means of transportation for employment.
> Unless you are living in a metropolis that has a mass-transit system,
there
> is no possibility of making up for back-child support (let alone ANY child
> support what so ever). It is an invitation to poverty for the paying
spouse
> and the child thanks to the state and its over-zealous and ignorant
> statues. I, myself, live far in the desert and MUST rely on my car to get
> me to work or anywhere. There are no taxis, busses, or trains. Not even
> traffic for several miles. Should I loose my driving license, I would
surly
> parish. I would not know what to do. A bicycle would get me to work in
five
> hours. That would be out of the question. Good thing that I don't owe
child
> support.
>
> I am interested in other reader's opinions in the outrageous statute.
> Thanks for reading.

Well, i am sure the intention was to make the threat so that the paying
parent didnt let it go that far. It probably works in some cases. But when
the threat is made good, it makes for a situation that not only does not
resolve the original problem (non-payment) but makes the original problem
harder to resolve.

~August

The DaveŠ
August 20th 03, 05:30 PM
~August wrote:

> Well, i am sure the intention was to make the threat so that the
> paying parent didnt let it go that far. It probably works in some
> cases. But when the threat is made good, it makes for a situation
> that not only does not resolve the original problem (non-payment) but
> makes the original problem harder to resolve.

I'm sure it does work in some cases, but to the guy who has no
intention of paying, it means nothing. It also forces the father and
the kid (it is supposed to be about the kids, right? - just checking)
into a lower standard of living and makes life harder for all involved.
This cannot be proven, of course, but I am convinced that the sole
reason is so the politicians can *appear* to be tough on "deadbeat
dads" and caring "for the children".

The DaveŠ
August 20th 03, 05:30 PM
~August wrote:

> Well, i am sure the intention was to make the threat so that the
> paying parent didnt let it go that far. It probably works in some
> cases. But when the threat is made good, it makes for a situation
> that not only does not resolve the original problem (non-payment) but
> makes the original problem harder to resolve.

I'm sure it does work in some cases, but to the guy who has no
intention of paying, it means nothing. It also forces the father and
the kid (it is supposed to be about the kids, right? - just checking)
into a lower standard of living and makes life harder for all involved.
This cannot be proven, of course, but I am convinced that the sole
reason is so the politicians can *appear* to be tough on "deadbeat
dads" and caring "for the children".

~August
August 20th 03, 08:56 PM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "~August" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I am sure it is no surprise to some that you could loose your driving
> > > license in some or most American states if you fail to pay child
> support.
> > I
> > > went down to the local DMV and read the driver manual and saw it
myself.
> > >
> > > I think in my own opinion that is the most retarded statute I have
ever
> > > heard of. That's like biting the hand that feeds you. Might as well
take
> > > away the paying spouses right to work and then scratch our heads
> wondering
> > > why child support has stopped coming in. Typical American politics.
Most
> > > jobs require that you have some means of transportation for
employment.
> > > Unless you are living in a metropolis that has a mass-transit system,
> > there
> > > is no possibility of making up for back-child support (let alone ANY
> child
> > > support what so ever). It is an invitation to poverty for the paying
> > spouse
> > > and the child thanks to the state and its over-zealous and ignorant
> > > statues. I, myself, live far in the desert and MUST rely on my car to
> get
> > > me to work or anywhere. There are no taxis, busses, or trains. Not
even
> > > traffic for several miles. Should I loose my driving license, I would
> > surly
> > > parish. I would not know what to do. A bicycle would get me to work in
> > five
> > > hours. That would be out of the question. Good thing that I don't owe
> > child
> > > support.
> > >
> > > I am interested in other reader's opinions in the outrageous statute.
> > > Thanks for reading.
> >
> > Well, i am sure the intention was to make the threat so that the paying
> > parent didnt let it go that far. It probably works in some cases. But

> when
> > the threat is made good, it makes for a situation that not only does not
> > resolve the original problem (non-payment) but makes the original
problem
> > harder to resolve.
>
> Due to a delay in the state plugging in a modification in my case, I got
to
> the point where my drivers license was suspended. (An NCP can't overpay
an
> old CS order and if the state fails to implement an increased new order
with
> retroactive application quickly the arrearage created by the state's lack
of
> action can easily put an NCP over the statutory limit to get their DL
> suspended.) I just kept on driving and the law didn't faze me one bit.
> When I got caught back up on CS payments the state rescinded the DL
> suspension. It cost me about $50 to get my license reinstated, but other
> than that there was no inconvenience. I just drove without a valid DL.

What kind of mess could that have created for you had you been pulled over
for something?

~August
August 20th 03, 08:56 PM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "~August" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I am sure it is no surprise to some that you could loose your driving
> > > license in some or most American states if you fail to pay child
> support.
> > I
> > > went down to the local DMV and read the driver manual and saw it
myself.
> > >
> > > I think in my own opinion that is the most retarded statute I have
ever
> > > heard of. That's like biting the hand that feeds you. Might as well
take
> > > away the paying spouses right to work and then scratch our heads
> wondering
> > > why child support has stopped coming in. Typical American politics.
Most
> > > jobs require that you have some means of transportation for
employment.
> > > Unless you are living in a metropolis that has a mass-transit system,
> > there
> > > is no possibility of making up for back-child support (let alone ANY
> child
> > > support what so ever). It is an invitation to poverty for the paying
> > spouse
> > > and the child thanks to the state and its over-zealous and ignorant
> > > statues. I, myself, live far in the desert and MUST rely on my car to
> get
> > > me to work or anywhere. There are no taxis, busses, or trains. Not
even
> > > traffic for several miles. Should I loose my driving license, I would
> > surly
> > > parish. I would not know what to do. A bicycle would get me to work in
> > five
> > > hours. That would be out of the question. Good thing that I don't owe
> > child
> > > support.
> > >
> > > I am interested in other reader's opinions in the outrageous statute.
> > > Thanks for reading.
> >
> > Well, i am sure the intention was to make the threat so that the paying
> > parent didnt let it go that far. It probably works in some cases. But

> when
> > the threat is made good, it makes for a situation that not only does not
> > resolve the original problem (non-payment) but makes the original
problem
> > harder to resolve.
>
> Due to a delay in the state plugging in a modification in my case, I got
to
> the point where my drivers license was suspended. (An NCP can't overpay
an
> old CS order and if the state fails to implement an increased new order
with
> retroactive application quickly the arrearage created by the state's lack
of
> action can easily put an NCP over the statutory limit to get their DL
> suspended.) I just kept on driving and the law didn't faze me one bit.
> When I got caught back up on CS payments the state rescinded the DL
> suspension. It cost me about $50 to get my license reinstated, but other
> than that there was no inconvenience. I just drove without a valid DL.

What kind of mess could that have created for you had you been pulled over
for something?

Bob Whiteside
August 21st 03, 12:04 AM
"~August" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "~August" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I am sure it is no surprise to some that you could loose your
driving
> > > > license in some or most American states if you fail to pay child
> > support.
> > > I
> > > > went down to the local DMV and read the driver manual and saw it
> myself.
> > > >
> > > > I think in my own opinion that is the most retarded statute I have
> ever
> > > > heard of. That's like biting the hand that feeds you. Might as well
> take
> > > > away the paying spouses right to work and then scratch our heads
> > wondering
> > > > why child support has stopped coming in. Typical American politics.
> Most
> > > > jobs require that you have some means of transportation for
> employment.
> > > > Unless you are living in a metropolis that has a mass-transit
system,
> > > there
> > > > is no possibility of making up for back-child support (let alone ANY
> > child
> > > > support what so ever). It is an invitation to poverty for the paying
> > > spouse
> > > > and the child thanks to the state and its over-zealous and ignorant
> > > > statues. I, myself, live far in the desert and MUST rely on my car
to
> > get
> > > > me to work or anywhere. There are no taxis, busses, or trains. Not
> even
> > > > traffic for several miles. Should I loose my driving license, I
would
> > > surly
> > > > parish. I would not know what to do. A bicycle would get me to work
in
> > > five
> > > > hours. That would be out of the question. Good thing that I don't
owe
> > > child
> > > > support.
> > > >
> > > > I am interested in other reader's opinions in the outrageous
statute.
> > > > Thanks for reading.
> > >
> > > Well, i am sure the intention was to make the threat so that the
paying
> > > parent didnt let it go that far. It probably works in some cases.
But
>
> > when
> > > the threat is made good, it makes for a situation that not only does
not
> > > resolve the original problem (non-payment) but makes the original
> problem
> > > harder to resolve.
> >
> > Due to a delay in the state plugging in a modification in my case, I got
> to
> > the point where my drivers license was suspended. (An NCP can't overpay
> an
> > old CS order and if the state fails to implement an increased new order
> with
> > retroactive application quickly the arrearage created by the state's
lack
> of
> > action can easily put an NCP over the statutory limit to get their DL
> > suspended.) I just kept on driving and the law didn't faze me one bit.
> > When I got caught back up on CS payments the state rescinded the DL
> > suspension. It cost me about $50 to get my license reinstated, but
other
> > than that there was no inconvenience. I just drove without a valid DL.
>
> What kind of mess could that have created for you had you been pulled over
> for something?

Driving while suspended ticket. No big deal - DUI's and teenagers do it.
Illegal aliens drive all the time without any license at all.

BTW - when they send you instructions to go to DMV and turn in your license,
ignore it. They don't do anything to you for not complying.

Bob Whiteside
August 21st 03, 12:04 AM
"~August" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "~August" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I am sure it is no surprise to some that you could loose your
driving
> > > > license in some or most American states if you fail to pay child
> > support.
> > > I
> > > > went down to the local DMV and read the driver manual and saw it
> myself.
> > > >
> > > > I think in my own opinion that is the most retarded statute I have
> ever
> > > > heard of. That's like biting the hand that feeds you. Might as well
> take
> > > > away the paying spouses right to work and then scratch our heads
> > wondering
> > > > why child support has stopped coming in. Typical American politics.
> Most
> > > > jobs require that you have some means of transportation for
> employment.
> > > > Unless you are living in a metropolis that has a mass-transit
system,
> > > there
> > > > is no possibility of making up for back-child support (let alone ANY
> > child
> > > > support what so ever). It is an invitation to poverty for the paying
> > > spouse
> > > > and the child thanks to the state and its over-zealous and ignorant
> > > > statues. I, myself, live far in the desert and MUST rely on my car
to
> > get
> > > > me to work or anywhere. There are no taxis, busses, or trains. Not
> even
> > > > traffic for several miles. Should I loose my driving license, I
would
> > > surly
> > > > parish. I would not know what to do. A bicycle would get me to work
in
> > > five
> > > > hours. That would be out of the question. Good thing that I don't
owe
> > > child
> > > > support.
> > > >
> > > > I am interested in other reader's opinions in the outrageous
statute.
> > > > Thanks for reading.
> > >
> > > Well, i am sure the intention was to make the threat so that the
paying
> > > parent didnt let it go that far. It probably works in some cases.
But
>
> > when
> > > the threat is made good, it makes for a situation that not only does
not
> > > resolve the original problem (non-payment) but makes the original
> problem
> > > harder to resolve.
> >
> > Due to a delay in the state plugging in a modification in my case, I got
> to
> > the point where my drivers license was suspended. (An NCP can't overpay
> an
> > old CS order and if the state fails to implement an increased new order
> with
> > retroactive application quickly the arrearage created by the state's
lack
> of
> > action can easily put an NCP over the statutory limit to get their DL
> > suspended.) I just kept on driving and the law didn't faze me one bit.
> > When I got caught back up on CS payments the state rescinded the DL
> > suspension. It cost me about $50 to get my license reinstated, but
other
> > than that there was no inconvenience. I just drove without a valid DL.
>
> What kind of mess could that have created for you had you been pulled over
> for something?

Driving while suspended ticket. No big deal - DUI's and teenagers do it.
Illegal aliens drive all the time without any license at all.

BTW - when they send you instructions to go to DMV and turn in your license,
ignore it. They don't do anything to you for not complying.

The DaveŠ
August 21st 03, 02:48 AM
"Bob Whiteside" wrote
> BTW - when they send you instructions to go to DMV and turn in your
license,
> ignore it. They don't do anything to you for not complying.

What are they gonna do? Take your license?

The DaveŠ
August 21st 03, 02:48 AM
"Bob Whiteside" wrote
> BTW - when they send you instructions to go to DMV and turn in your
license,
> ignore it. They don't do anything to you for not complying.

What are they gonna do? Take your license?

TOM
August 21st 03, 03:05 AM
~August wrote:

> "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I am sure it is no surprise to some that you could loose your driving
>>license in some or most American states if you fail to pay child support.
>
> I
>
>>went down to the local DMV and read the driver manual and saw it myself.
>>
>>I think in my own opinion that is the most retarded statute I have ever
>>heard of. That's like biting the hand that feeds you. Might as well take
>>away the paying spouses right to work and then scratch our heads wondering
>>why child support has stopped coming in. Typical American politics. Most
>>jobs require that you have some means of transportation for employment.
>>Unless you are living in a metropolis that has a mass-transit system,
>
> there
>
>>is no possibility of making up for back-child support (let alone ANY child
>>support what so ever). It is an invitation to poverty for the paying
>
> spouse
>
>>and the child thanks to the state and its over-zealous and ignorant
>>statues. I, myself, live far in the desert and MUST rely on my car to get
>>me to work or anywhere. There are no taxis, busses, or trains. Not even
>>traffic for several miles. Should I loose my driving license, I would
>
> surly
>
>>parish. I would not know what to do. A bicycle would get me to work in
>
> five
>
>>hours. That would be out of the question. Good thing that I don't owe
>
> child
>
>>support.
>>
>>I am interested in other reader's opinions in the outrageous statute.
>>Thanks for reading.
>
>
> Well, i am sure the intention was to make the threat so that the paying
> parent didnt let it go that far. It probably works in some cases. But when
> the threat is made good, it makes for a situation that not only does not
> resolve the original problem (non-payment) but makes the original problem
> harder to resolve.
>
> ~August

No problem, they don't pay child support because they can't drive to
work? Heck, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. Then when
they get out, maybe they can find a job close enough they can walk to
work. That's when they start paying the back payments they didn't make
while in jail...

Sounds fair to me!!!

Tom - Vista, CA

TOM
August 21st 03, 03:05 AM
~August wrote:

> "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I am sure it is no surprise to some that you could loose your driving
>>license in some or most American states if you fail to pay child support.
>
> I
>
>>went down to the local DMV and read the driver manual and saw it myself.
>>
>>I think in my own opinion that is the most retarded statute I have ever
>>heard of. That's like biting the hand that feeds you. Might as well take
>>away the paying spouses right to work and then scratch our heads wondering
>>why child support has stopped coming in. Typical American politics. Most
>>jobs require that you have some means of transportation for employment.
>>Unless you are living in a metropolis that has a mass-transit system,
>
> there
>
>>is no possibility of making up for back-child support (let alone ANY child
>>support what so ever). It is an invitation to poverty for the paying
>
> spouse
>
>>and the child thanks to the state and its over-zealous and ignorant
>>statues. I, myself, live far in the desert and MUST rely on my car to get
>>me to work or anywhere. There are no taxis, busses, or trains. Not even
>>traffic for several miles. Should I loose my driving license, I would
>
> surly
>
>>parish. I would not know what to do. A bicycle would get me to work in
>
> five
>
>>hours. That would be out of the question. Good thing that I don't owe
>
> child
>
>>support.
>>
>>I am interested in other reader's opinions in the outrageous statute.
>>Thanks for reading.
>
>
> Well, i am sure the intention was to make the threat so that the paying
> parent didnt let it go that far. It probably works in some cases. But when
> the threat is made good, it makes for a situation that not only does not
> resolve the original problem (non-payment) but makes the original problem
> harder to resolve.
>
> ~August

No problem, they don't pay child support because they can't drive to
work? Heck, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. Then when
they get out, maybe they can find a job close enough they can walk to
work. That's when they start paying the back payments they didn't make
while in jail...

Sounds fair to me!!!

Tom - Vista, CA

dani
August 21st 03, 09:09 AM
Bob Whiteside wrote:

> "The DaveŠ" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Bob Whiteside" wrote
>>
>>>BTW - when they send you instructions to go to DMV and turn in your
>>
>>license,
>>
>>>ignore it. They don't do anything to you for not complying.
>>
>>What are they gonna do? Take your license?
>
>
> Nah, they suspend it a second time, I guess! Oh wait, if they suspend the
> suspension, that must mean they reactivate your license. This legal stuff
> is so confusing!
>
>
Actually, the notice I just got in the mail (CA.) says this:

YOU MUST SURRENDER ANY LICENSE IN YOUR POSSESSION. NOT DOING THIS IS A
MISDEMEANOR (SECTION 14610 V.C.) YOU MAY APPLY FOR AN IDENTIFICATION
(I.D.) CARD AT ANY DMV OFFICE.

IF YOU DRIVE WHILE UNLICENSED, SUSPENDED, OR REVOKED, THE VEHICLE CAN BE
IMPOUNDED AND SOLD (SAFE STREET ACT OF 1994, SECTION 14607.6 V.C.).

IF YOU DRIVE WHILE YOUR PRIVELEDGE IS TAKEN AWAY, YOU CAN BE ARRESTED
FOR VIOLATING SECTIONS, 14601, 14601.1, 14601.2 OR 14601.5, CVC. A
CONVICTION CAN RESULT IN JAIL, A FINE, AND/OR REQUIRED INSTALLATION OF
AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE.

That's in California.

Which leaves me with two questions besides the obvious already discussed.

Why would they install an interlock device on a vehicle they impounded?

How or when did they turn the right to travel, earn a living, etc. into
a "priveledge"?

And how is this going to get them paid? The public transportation system
in L.A. sucks.

My two cents. And that was three questions.

Aw hell. I don't even have a car, now. Sold it to pay the childrens
appointed attorney. So F them.

What did I do last time? Drove anyways and finally paid (i.e. caught up)
and got it back.

But, I may fight it on principle anyways. I have a fairly good motion...
almost finished if anyone wants a copy.

dani
August 21st 03, 09:09 AM
Bob Whiteside wrote:

> "The DaveŠ" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Bob Whiteside" wrote
>>
>>>BTW - when they send you instructions to go to DMV and turn in your
>>
>>license,
>>
>>>ignore it. They don't do anything to you for not complying.
>>
>>What are they gonna do? Take your license?
>
>
> Nah, they suspend it a second time, I guess! Oh wait, if they suspend the
> suspension, that must mean they reactivate your license. This legal stuff
> is so confusing!
>
>
Actually, the notice I just got in the mail (CA.) says this:

YOU MUST SURRENDER ANY LICENSE IN YOUR POSSESSION. NOT DOING THIS IS A
MISDEMEANOR (SECTION 14610 V.C.) YOU MAY APPLY FOR AN IDENTIFICATION
(I.D.) CARD AT ANY DMV OFFICE.

IF YOU DRIVE WHILE UNLICENSED, SUSPENDED, OR REVOKED, THE VEHICLE CAN BE
IMPOUNDED AND SOLD (SAFE STREET ACT OF 1994, SECTION 14607.6 V.C.).

IF YOU DRIVE WHILE YOUR PRIVELEDGE IS TAKEN AWAY, YOU CAN BE ARRESTED
FOR VIOLATING SECTIONS, 14601, 14601.1, 14601.2 OR 14601.5, CVC. A
CONVICTION CAN RESULT IN JAIL, A FINE, AND/OR REQUIRED INSTALLATION OF
AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE.

That's in California.

Which leaves me with two questions besides the obvious already discussed.

Why would they install an interlock device on a vehicle they impounded?

How or when did they turn the right to travel, earn a living, etc. into
a "priveledge"?

And how is this going to get them paid? The public transportation system
in L.A. sucks.

My two cents. And that was three questions.

Aw hell. I don't even have a car, now. Sold it to pay the childrens
appointed attorney. So F them.

What did I do last time? Drove anyways and finally paid (i.e. caught up)
and got it back.

But, I may fight it on principle anyways. I have a fairly good motion...
almost finished if anyone wants a copy.

whatever
August 21st 03, 10:53 AM
Dani,
You hit the nail on the head that is exactly what is happening. There
is a feminist agenda that is using children as a tool for the
transference of wealth, without the necessity of work. We do have this
happening all across the board. All of these ingnorant American laws
keep me from ever even thinking of having kids or getting married. It
will not happen, that is it and that is all. Tom is an example of the
ignorant thinking that caused the problem in the first place,
especially if Tom is a male. Women could not enact these stupid laws
unless they enlisted support from stupid blind males, either husbands
or political male but kissers, that allow such obviously unfair, cruel
and unusual laws to be enacted. The other thing that the courts can do
is revoke professional licenses like a Contractors license or a real
estate license, once again affecting a persons livelihood. Yes, once
you affect a persons livelihood, you might as well throw them in jail,
at least they get three meals a day and a roof, which is more than
they would have without a job. IT IS HIGHLY IRRITATING, to say the
least.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:25:05 GMT, dani > wrote:

>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> There you go Tom. Your the sort I was hoping would make such a reply to
>> this post.
>>
>> Yep, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. In the mean time the
>> child suffers from non-payment. And with a suspended drivers license, the
>> child still suffers due to issues with the paying spouses inability to
>> commute 90 miles to work in a deep rural desert.
>>
>> Tom, you are looking at this issue ONLY from one side. The child's
>> livelihood is essentially in the hands of the paying spouse! You actually
>> think its fair to suspend a driving license or to jail the paying spouse
>> which directly interrupts the livelihood and well being of the child?
>> That's sick!
>
>It is sick. And the point is? To remove father's from their children.
>>
>> This is why I think the law is extremely screwed up. It does not fix
>> anything. In reality, it makes an already difficult situation much worse.
>> There are many situations where the paying spouse is sincerely unable to
>> find work or a decent paying job. Even if the paying spouse intentionally
>> just stops paying child support, there are more common sense solutions to
>> fixing the problem than to cut them off from earning the money that they
>> must pay. Its a deliberate catch-22 that our over zealous politicians
>> dreamed up for reasons I can never imagine.
>
>Imagine this. A feminist-socialist agenda with the likes of NOW, etc who
>are bent on crucifying men for anything and everything, and will use
>whatever it takes to bring about the destruction of the family.
>Including the replacement of good ol Dad, with the guvmint welfare
>machine. Why? Money. How much do you think the state, the courts, jails
>make in federal dollars on this whole child support scenario. Take a
>Guess, Gus?
>
>> I can only suspect that these politicians where lobbied into passing such a
>> law by unintelligent extremist and zealots with hell-bent uneducated
>> agendas that go against the laws of common human sense.
>
>Never underestimate your enemy. THey are far from unintelligent. They do
>have an agenda.
>
>> Guss
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, TOM > wrote:
>>
>>>No problem, they don't pay child support because they can't drive to
>>>work? Heck, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. Then when
>>>they get out, maybe they can find a job close enough they can walk to
>>>work. That's when they start paying the back payments they didn't make
>>>while in jail...
>>>
>>>Sounds fair to me!!!
>>>
>>>Tom - Vista, CA
>>
>

whatever
August 21st 03, 10:53 AM
Dani,
You hit the nail on the head that is exactly what is happening. There
is a feminist agenda that is using children as a tool for the
transference of wealth, without the necessity of work. We do have this
happening all across the board. All of these ingnorant American laws
keep me from ever even thinking of having kids or getting married. It
will not happen, that is it and that is all. Tom is an example of the
ignorant thinking that caused the problem in the first place,
especially if Tom is a male. Women could not enact these stupid laws
unless they enlisted support from stupid blind males, either husbands
or political male but kissers, that allow such obviously unfair, cruel
and unusual laws to be enacted. The other thing that the courts can do
is revoke professional licenses like a Contractors license or a real
estate license, once again affecting a persons livelihood. Yes, once
you affect a persons livelihood, you might as well throw them in jail,
at least they get three meals a day and a roof, which is more than
they would have without a job. IT IS HIGHLY IRRITATING, to say the
least.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:25:05 GMT, dani > wrote:

>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> There you go Tom. Your the sort I was hoping would make such a reply to
>> this post.
>>
>> Yep, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. In the mean time the
>> child suffers from non-payment. And with a suspended drivers license, the
>> child still suffers due to issues with the paying spouses inability to
>> commute 90 miles to work in a deep rural desert.
>>
>> Tom, you are looking at this issue ONLY from one side. The child's
>> livelihood is essentially in the hands of the paying spouse! You actually
>> think its fair to suspend a driving license or to jail the paying spouse
>> which directly interrupts the livelihood and well being of the child?
>> That's sick!
>
>It is sick. And the point is? To remove father's from their children.
>>
>> This is why I think the law is extremely screwed up. It does not fix
>> anything. In reality, it makes an already difficult situation much worse.
>> There are many situations where the paying spouse is sincerely unable to
>> find work or a decent paying job. Even if the paying spouse intentionally
>> just stops paying child support, there are more common sense solutions to
>> fixing the problem than to cut them off from earning the money that they
>> must pay. Its a deliberate catch-22 that our over zealous politicians
>> dreamed up for reasons I can never imagine.
>
>Imagine this. A feminist-socialist agenda with the likes of NOW, etc who
>are bent on crucifying men for anything and everything, and will use
>whatever it takes to bring about the destruction of the family.
>Including the replacement of good ol Dad, with the guvmint welfare
>machine. Why? Money. How much do you think the state, the courts, jails
>make in federal dollars on this whole child support scenario. Take a
>Guess, Gus?
>
>> I can only suspect that these politicians where lobbied into passing such a
>> law by unintelligent extremist and zealots with hell-bent uneducated
>> agendas that go against the laws of common human sense.
>
>Never underestimate your enemy. THey are far from unintelligent. They do
>have an agenda.
>
>> Guss
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, TOM > wrote:
>>
>>>No problem, they don't pay child support because they can't drive to
>>>work? Heck, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. Then when
>>>they get out, maybe they can find a job close enough they can walk to
>>>work. That's when they start paying the back payments they didn't make
>>>while in jail...
>>>
>>>Sounds fair to me!!!
>>>
>>>Tom - Vista, CA
>>
>

Mike Cook
August 21st 03, 03:33 PM
Woah! Actually I believe I detect a note of sarcasm in Tom's
ommentary. -Mike

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> There you go Tom. Your the sort I was hoping would make such a reply to
> this post.
>
> Yep, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. In the mean time the
> child suffers from non-payment. And with a suspended drivers license, the
> child still suffers due to issues with the paying spouses inability to
> commute 90 miles to work in a deep rural desert.
>
> Tom, you are looking at this issue ONLY from one side. The child's
> livelihood is essentially in the hands of the paying spouse! You actually
> think its fair to suspend a driving license or to jail the paying spouse
> which directly interrupts the livelihood and well being of the child?
> That's sick!
>
> This is why I think the law is extremely screwed up. It does not fix
> anything. In reality, it makes an already difficult situation much worse.
> There are many situations where the paying spouse is sincerely unable to
> find work or a decent paying job. Even if the paying spouse intentionally
> just stops paying child support, there are more common sense solutions to
> fixing the problem than to cut them off from earning the money that they
> must pay. Its a deliberate catch-22 that our over zealous politicians
> dreamed up for reasons I can never imagine.
>
> I can only suspect that these politicians where lobbied into passing such
a
> law by unintelligent extremist and zealots with hell-bent uneducated
> agendas that go against the laws of common human sense.
>
> Guss
>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, TOM > wrote:
> >
> >No problem, they don't pay child support because they can't drive to
> >work? Heck, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. Then when
> >they get out, maybe they can find a job close enough they can walk to
> >work. That's when they start paying the back payments they didn't make
> >while in jail...
> >
> >Sounds fair to me!!!
> >
> >Tom - Vista, CA
>

Mike Cook
August 21st 03, 03:33 PM
Woah! Actually I believe I detect a note of sarcasm in Tom's
ommentary. -Mike

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> There you go Tom. Your the sort I was hoping would make such a reply to
> this post.
>
> Yep, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. In the mean time the
> child suffers from non-payment. And with a suspended drivers license, the
> child still suffers due to issues with the paying spouses inability to
> commute 90 miles to work in a deep rural desert.
>
> Tom, you are looking at this issue ONLY from one side. The child's
> livelihood is essentially in the hands of the paying spouse! You actually
> think its fair to suspend a driving license or to jail the paying spouse
> which directly interrupts the livelihood and well being of the child?
> That's sick!
>
> This is why I think the law is extremely screwed up. It does not fix
> anything. In reality, it makes an already difficult situation much worse.
> There are many situations where the paying spouse is sincerely unable to
> find work or a decent paying job. Even if the paying spouse intentionally
> just stops paying child support, there are more common sense solutions to
> fixing the problem than to cut them off from earning the money that they
> must pay. Its a deliberate catch-22 that our over zealous politicians
> dreamed up for reasons I can never imagine.
>
> I can only suspect that these politicians where lobbied into passing such
a
> law by unintelligent extremist and zealots with hell-bent uneducated
> agendas that go against the laws of common human sense.
>
> Guss
>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, TOM > wrote:
> >
> >No problem, they don't pay child support because they can't drive to
> >work? Heck, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. Then when
> >they get out, maybe they can find a job close enough they can walk to
> >work. That's when they start paying the back payments they didn't make
> >while in jail...
> >
> >Sounds fair to me!!!
> >
> >Tom - Vista, CA
>

The DaveŠ
August 21st 03, 05:30 PM
> How or when did they turn the right to travel, earn a living, etc.
> into a "priveledge"?

Oh, but you still have the "right" to go wherever you want. How you
get there has never been guaranteed.

> And how is this going to get them paid?

The conveniently ignore this little fact.

> The public transportation
> system in L.A. sucks.
>
> My two cents. And that was three questions.
>
> Aw hell. I don't even have a car, now. Sold it to pay the childrens
> appointed attorney. So F them.
>
> What did I do last time? Drove anyways and finally paid (i.e. caught
> up) and got it back.
>
> But, I may fight it on principle anyways. I have a fairly good
> motion... almost finished if anyone wants a copy.

The DaveŠ
August 21st 03, 05:30 PM
> How or when did they turn the right to travel, earn a living, etc.
> into a "priveledge"?

Oh, but you still have the "right" to go wherever you want. How you
get there has never been guaranteed.

> And how is this going to get them paid?

The conveniently ignore this little fact.

> The public transportation
> system in L.A. sucks.
>
> My two cents. And that was three questions.
>
> Aw hell. I don't even have a car, now. Sold it to pay the childrens
> appointed attorney. So F them.
>
> What did I do last time? Drove anyways and finally paid (i.e. caught
> up) and got it back.
>
> But, I may fight it on principle anyways. I have a fairly good
> motion... almost finished if anyone wants a copy.

The DaveŠ
August 21st 03, 05:30 PM
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> There you go Tom. Your the sort I was hoping would make such a reply
> to this post.
>
> Yep, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. In the mean time
> the child suffers from non-payment. And with a suspended drivers
> license, the child still suffers due to issues with the paying
> spouses inability to commute 90 miles to work in a deep rural desert.
>
> Tom, you are looking at this issue ONLY from one side. The child's
> livelihood is essentially in the hands of the paying spouse! You
> actually think its fair to suspend a driving license or to jail the
> paying spouse which directly interrupts the livelihood and well being
> of the child? That's sick!
>
> This is why I think the law is extremely screwed up. It does not fix
> anything. In reality, it makes an already difficult situation much
> worse. There are many situations where the paying spouse is
> sincerely unable to find work or a decent paying job. Even if the
> paying spouse intentionally just stops paying child support, there
> are more common sense solutions to fixing the problem than to cut
> them off from earning the money that they must pay. Its a deliberate
> catch-22 that our over zealous politicians dreamed up for reasons I
> can never imagine.

It looks good to voters who don't know any better. Then, whenever
someone tries to point out the idiocy of it all, they're portrayed as
insenstive and selfish by special interest groups whose job it is to
make sure things stay in their favor. Unfortunately, it's quite
effective. It won't stop until society at large stops falling for the
emotional arguments, and starts demanding rational solutions.

> I can only suspect that these politicians where lobbied into passing
> such a law by unintelligent extremist and zealots with hell-bent
> uneducated agendas that go against the laws of common human sense.

The DaveŠ
August 21st 03, 05:30 PM
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> There you go Tom. Your the sort I was hoping would make such a reply
> to this post.
>
> Yep, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. In the mean time
> the child suffers from non-payment. And with a suspended drivers
> license, the child still suffers due to issues with the paying
> spouses inability to commute 90 miles to work in a deep rural desert.
>
> Tom, you are looking at this issue ONLY from one side. The child's
> livelihood is essentially in the hands of the paying spouse! You
> actually think its fair to suspend a driving license or to jail the
> paying spouse which directly interrupts the livelihood and well being
> of the child? That's sick!
>
> This is why I think the law is extremely screwed up. It does not fix
> anything. In reality, it makes an already difficult situation much
> worse. There are many situations where the paying spouse is
> sincerely unable to find work or a decent paying job. Even if the
> paying spouse intentionally just stops paying child support, there
> are more common sense solutions to fixing the problem than to cut
> them off from earning the money that they must pay. Its a deliberate
> catch-22 that our over zealous politicians dreamed up for reasons I
> can never imagine.

It looks good to voters who don't know any better. Then, whenever
someone tries to point out the idiocy of it all, they're portrayed as
insenstive and selfish by special interest groups whose job it is to
make sure things stay in their favor. Unfortunately, it's quite
effective. It won't stop until society at large stops falling for the
emotional arguments, and starts demanding rational solutions.

> I can only suspect that these politicians where lobbied into passing
> such a law by unintelligent extremist and zealots with hell-bent
> uneducated agendas that go against the laws of common human sense.

August 22nd 03, 12:09 AM
I had mine suspended! But it wasnt my fault. I was in car accident
and almost died. No one in CS cared. Money was already being taken
out of my weekly check. Being I didnt work for a 1 year and 6 months,
CS wasnt getting their payment. It took me forever and a day to just
get a court date, so I could explain my situation and get a
modification of support. By the time I got thru all that I got my
liscense suspended. So I decide to get a Restricted License with
allow me to go to and from work OR to be ABLE to work in my situation.
So I go to DMV to get that license. I take the paperwork to DMV, they
give me a license that has a Restricted License with B endorsement,
but not the P. It was still considered a Commercial Drivers License,
which DMV claims I can drive a commercial vehicle. When I got to my
job, they say I STILL can't work without the right endorsements. The
license the DMV gave me claims I could drive a bus with no problem.
But NY Transit says it's not good enough for them. In NY Transit's
eyes, it was good for me to drive Farm Vehicles or Cattle Cars. So in
order for me to go back to work, (I work for NY Transit), I had to get
my license back with the B & P endorsments. I had to go to BACK to CS
and sign a paper saying I agree to pay arreas on the money I didnt pay
during that time I was out of work, just so CS would lift the
suspension of my license. Finally I get THAT paperwork and go back to
DMV and finally get the right license. What a setup that CS does to
hold you back from working if you have a job that requires you do
DRIVE to make the money so you can PAY the CS back for the money you
owe! Then of course I start back to work and in my check stub, good
old CS is taking what they were before weekly AND the arrears money.
Good thing is, that FINALLY I got my day in court and they modified my
order of support. And the judge ruled for the modification due to me
being disabled for that year and a half. So all the money that was
taken for my Federal Tax, State Tax, arreas, and other side money that
I made on a small side job while I was out, has to be paid back to me.
I just sent a certified package with all my check stubs copies and tax
return copies with the copy of the letter of modification and the
amounts highlited that they took to the state I'm paying support in
and they owe ME close to $7,000! I'm just sitting back waiting :) I
have faith I'm getting all my money back cause CS made mistakes in the
past and sent me back money for overpayments. But overall they WILL
try and screw you, you just gotta stay on their ass!


On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:20:22 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> wrote:

>I am sure it is no surprise to some that you could loose your driving
>license in some or most American states if you fail to pay child support. I
>went down to the local DMV and read the driver manual and saw it myself.
>
>I think in my own opinion that is the most retarded statute I have ever
>heard of. That's like biting the hand that feeds you. Might as well take
>away the paying spouses right to work and then scratch our heads wondering
>why child support has stopped coming in. Typical American politics. Most
>jobs require that you have some means of transportation for employment.
>Unless you are living in a metropolis that has a mass-transit system, there
>is no possibility of making up for back-child support (let alone ANY child
>support what so ever). It is an invitation to poverty for the paying spouse
>and the child thanks to the state and its over-zealous and ignorant
>statues. I, myself, live far in the desert and MUST rely on my car to get
>me to work or anywhere. There are no taxis, busses, or trains. Not even
>traffic for several miles. Should I loose my driving license, I would surly
>parish. I would not know what to do. A bicycle would get me to work in five
>hours. That would be out of the question. Good thing that I don't owe child
>support.
>
>I am interested in other reader's opinions in the outrageous statute.
>Thanks for reading.
>
>Guss

August 22nd 03, 12:09 AM
I had mine suspended! But it wasnt my fault. I was in car accident
and almost died. No one in CS cared. Money was already being taken
out of my weekly check. Being I didnt work for a 1 year and 6 months,
CS wasnt getting their payment. It took me forever and a day to just
get a court date, so I could explain my situation and get a
modification of support. By the time I got thru all that I got my
liscense suspended. So I decide to get a Restricted License with
allow me to go to and from work OR to be ABLE to work in my situation.
So I go to DMV to get that license. I take the paperwork to DMV, they
give me a license that has a Restricted License with B endorsement,
but not the P. It was still considered a Commercial Drivers License,
which DMV claims I can drive a commercial vehicle. When I got to my
job, they say I STILL can't work without the right endorsements. The
license the DMV gave me claims I could drive a bus with no problem.
But NY Transit says it's not good enough for them. In NY Transit's
eyes, it was good for me to drive Farm Vehicles or Cattle Cars. So in
order for me to go back to work, (I work for NY Transit), I had to get
my license back with the B & P endorsments. I had to go to BACK to CS
and sign a paper saying I agree to pay arreas on the money I didnt pay
during that time I was out of work, just so CS would lift the
suspension of my license. Finally I get THAT paperwork and go back to
DMV and finally get the right license. What a setup that CS does to
hold you back from working if you have a job that requires you do
DRIVE to make the money so you can PAY the CS back for the money you
owe! Then of course I start back to work and in my check stub, good
old CS is taking what they were before weekly AND the arrears money.
Good thing is, that FINALLY I got my day in court and they modified my
order of support. And the judge ruled for the modification due to me
being disabled for that year and a half. So all the money that was
taken for my Federal Tax, State Tax, arreas, and other side money that
I made on a small side job while I was out, has to be paid back to me.
I just sent a certified package with all my check stubs copies and tax
return copies with the copy of the letter of modification and the
amounts highlited that they took to the state I'm paying support in
and they owe ME close to $7,000! I'm just sitting back waiting :) I
have faith I'm getting all my money back cause CS made mistakes in the
past and sent me back money for overpayments. But overall they WILL
try and screw you, you just gotta stay on their ass!


On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:20:22 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> wrote:

>I am sure it is no surprise to some that you could loose your driving
>license in some or most American states if you fail to pay child support. I
>went down to the local DMV and read the driver manual and saw it myself.
>
>I think in my own opinion that is the most retarded statute I have ever
>heard of. That's like biting the hand that feeds you. Might as well take
>away the paying spouses right to work and then scratch our heads wondering
>why child support has stopped coming in. Typical American politics. Most
>jobs require that you have some means of transportation for employment.
>Unless you are living in a metropolis that has a mass-transit system, there
>is no possibility of making up for back-child support (let alone ANY child
>support what so ever). It is an invitation to poverty for the paying spouse
>and the child thanks to the state and its over-zealous and ignorant
>statues. I, myself, live far in the desert and MUST rely on my car to get
>me to work or anywhere. There are no taxis, busses, or trains. Not even
>traffic for several miles. Should I loose my driving license, I would surly
>parish. I would not know what to do. A bicycle would get me to work in five
>hours. That would be out of the question. Good thing that I don't owe child
>support.
>
>I am interested in other reader's opinions in the outrageous statute.
>Thanks for reading.
>
>Guss

SHELMCCALL
August 22nd 03, 12:49 AM
Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait for th child
support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and are not
paying will have the obligation met.

SHELMCCALL
August 22nd 03, 12:49 AM
Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait for th child
support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and are not
paying will have the obligation met.

teachrmama
August 22nd 03, 01:15 AM
"SHELMCCALL" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait for th
child
> support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and are not
> paying will have the obligation met.

They will certainly be waiting a LOT longer for support if the person
required to pay it can't work because they can't get to work, don't you
think?

teachrmama
August 22nd 03, 01:15 AM
"SHELMCCALL" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait for th
child
> support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and are not
> paying will have the obligation met.

They will certainly be waiting a LOT longer for support if the person
required to pay it can't work because they can't get to work, don't you
think?

Tracy
August 22nd 03, 02:17 AM
"SHELMCCALL" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait for th
child
> support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and are not
> paying will have the obligation met.

Not sure what you mean by the above. Would you mind taking the time and
clarifying.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Tracy
August 22nd 03, 02:17 AM
"SHELMCCALL" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait for th
child
> support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and are not
> paying will have the obligation met.

Not sure what you mean by the above. Would you mind taking the time and
clarifying.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Tracy
August 22nd 03, 02:20 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "SHELMCCALL" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait for th
> child
> > support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and are
not
> > paying will have the obligation met.
>
> They will certainly be waiting a LOT longer for support if the person
> required to pay it can't work because they can't get to work, don't you
> think?


Do you feel a CP should have a license because they have to provide for the
children too? I mean really - if it is good for one it should be good for
the other, right?

What if the CP can't afford to have a car because the NCP doesn't pay
support? Meanwhile the NCP has a car, license, etc... must be nice, right?


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Tracy
August 22nd 03, 02:20 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "SHELMCCALL" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait for th
> child
> > support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and are
not
> > paying will have the obligation met.
>
> They will certainly be waiting a LOT longer for support if the person
> required to pay it can't work because they can't get to work, don't you
> think?


Do you feel a CP should have a license because they have to provide for the
children too? I mean really - if it is good for one it should be good for
the other, right?

What if the CP can't afford to have a car because the NCP doesn't pay
support? Meanwhile the NCP has a car, license, etc... must be nice, right?


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Tracy
August 22nd 03, 04:12 AM
"The DaveŠ" > wrote in message
...
> "Tracy" wrote
> > Do you feel a CP should have a license because they have to provide for
> the
> > children too? I mean really - if it is good for one it should be good
for
> > the other, right?
>
> As long as there are no other reasons not to (i.e.: DUI, actually pass the
> test, etc.), there's no reason a CP can't have a license. And, yes, the
> same standards should apply to NCPs.
>
> > What if the CP can't afford to have a car because the NCP doesn't pay
> > support? Meanwhile the NCP has a car, license, etc... must be nice,
> right?
>
> I think most feel (well, at least me) that it doesn't help for the
> government to throw up roadblocks and make it more difficult for the NCP
to
> be able to earn the money that the government is requiring be paid in CS.
> IOW: the government is virtually guaranteeing the NCP's continued failure.
> This particular method is counterproductive.


You didn't address my questions directly, but avoided answering it. Most in
this group are aware of my opinion concerning the roadblocks for NCP's. I
would like to know how these same people who strongly believe a car is a
necessity for the NCP feel when it is reversed - the NCP is the primary
cause for the CP to have no transportation (other than foot) because the NCP
doesn't pay *any* child support. In other words - let's talk about the
direct opposite for a moment.

I went for more than 10 years without a car and I supported my oldest two
sons 100% during that time. My ex did not pay the court ordered support of
$171/month for two children. Of course he wasn't order to pay that until
more than 7 years after our divorce - more than 8 years after his
conviction - almost 9 years after he lost custody. He wasn't around to
support them in any fashion. I had no car. I had no license. I didn't see
any reason to have a license when I couldn't afford to have a car.
$171/month would have made the difference - as I had put my children prior
to my own needs. Remember - I've gone through that story before.

So TM... why would it be fair that my ex should retain his license to drive
when he isn't being forced to pay child support, and for a long period of
time I went without transportation? He owes me well over $17k since he has
never paid a dime in support since he was ordered to. Why should I be
forced to suffer like that and he shouldn't? I worked my ass off to get to
where I'm at today. I'm the one who went into debt with student loans,
etc... meanwhile my ex lives off the tax payers. Why should he get to keep
his license and I made to pay to keep a roof over his head?

I know I'm not the only person in this boat...


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Tracy
August 22nd 03, 04:12 AM
"The DaveŠ" > wrote in message
...
> "Tracy" wrote
> > Do you feel a CP should have a license because they have to provide for
> the
> > children too? I mean really - if it is good for one it should be good
for
> > the other, right?
>
> As long as there are no other reasons not to (i.e.: DUI, actually pass the
> test, etc.), there's no reason a CP can't have a license. And, yes, the
> same standards should apply to NCPs.
>
> > What if the CP can't afford to have a car because the NCP doesn't pay
> > support? Meanwhile the NCP has a car, license, etc... must be nice,
> right?
>
> I think most feel (well, at least me) that it doesn't help for the
> government to throw up roadblocks and make it more difficult for the NCP
to
> be able to earn the money that the government is requiring be paid in CS.
> IOW: the government is virtually guaranteeing the NCP's continued failure.
> This particular method is counterproductive.


You didn't address my questions directly, but avoided answering it. Most in
this group are aware of my opinion concerning the roadblocks for NCP's. I
would like to know how these same people who strongly believe a car is a
necessity for the NCP feel when it is reversed - the NCP is the primary
cause for the CP to have no transportation (other than foot) because the NCP
doesn't pay *any* child support. In other words - let's talk about the
direct opposite for a moment.

I went for more than 10 years without a car and I supported my oldest two
sons 100% during that time. My ex did not pay the court ordered support of
$171/month for two children. Of course he wasn't order to pay that until
more than 7 years after our divorce - more than 8 years after his
conviction - almost 9 years after he lost custody. He wasn't around to
support them in any fashion. I had no car. I had no license. I didn't see
any reason to have a license when I couldn't afford to have a car.
$171/month would have made the difference - as I had put my children prior
to my own needs. Remember - I've gone through that story before.

So TM... why would it be fair that my ex should retain his license to drive
when he isn't being forced to pay child support, and for a long period of
time I went without transportation? He owes me well over $17k since he has
never paid a dime in support since he was ordered to. Why should I be
forced to suffer like that and he shouldn't? I worked my ass off to get to
where I'm at today. I'm the one who went into debt with student loans,
etc... meanwhile my ex lives off the tax payers. Why should he get to keep
his license and I made to pay to keep a roof over his head?

I know I'm not the only person in this boat...


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

teachrmama
August 22nd 03, 06:16 AM
"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:ESf1b.170832$Oz4.44920@rwcrnsc54...
> "The DaveŠ" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tracy" wrote
> > > Do you feel a CP should have a license because they have to provide
for
> > the
> > > children too? I mean really - if it is good for one it should be good
> for
> > > the other, right?
> >
> > As long as there are no other reasons not to (i.e.: DUI, actually pass
the
> > test, etc.), there's no reason a CP can't have a license. And, yes, the
> > same standards should apply to NCPs.
> >
> > > What if the CP can't afford to have a car because the NCP doesn't pay
> > > support? Meanwhile the NCP has a car, license, etc... must be nice,
> > right?
> >
> > I think most feel (well, at least me) that it doesn't help for the
> > government to throw up roadblocks and make it more difficult for the NCP
> to
> > be able to earn the money that the government is requiring be paid in
CS.
> > IOW: the government is virtually guaranteeing the NCP's continued
failure.
> > This particular method is counterproductive.
>
>
> You didn't address my questions directly, but avoided answering it. Most
in
> this group are aware of my opinion concerning the roadblocks for NCP's. I
> would like to know how these same people who strongly believe a car is a
> necessity for the NCP feel when it is reversed - the NCP is the primary
> cause for the CP to have no transportation (other than foot) because the
NCP
> doesn't pay *any* child support. In other words - let's talk about the
> direct opposite for a moment.
>
> I went for more than 10 years without a car and I supported my oldest two
> sons 100% during that time. My ex did not pay the court ordered support
of
> $171/month for two children. Of course he wasn't order to pay that until
> more than 7 years after our divorce - more than 8 years after his
> conviction - almost 9 years after he lost custody. He wasn't around to
> support them in any fashion. I had no car. I had no license. I didn't
see
> any reason to have a license when I couldn't afford to have a car.
> $171/month would have made the difference - as I had put my children prior
> to my own needs. Remember - I've gone through that story before.
>
> So TM... why would it be fair that my ex should retain his license to
drive
> when he isn't being forced to pay child support, and for a long period of
> time I went without transportation? He owes me well over $17k since he
has
> never paid a dime in support since he was ordered to. Why should I be
> forced to suffer like that and he shouldn't? I worked my ass off to get
to
> where I'm at today. I'm the one who went into debt with student loans,
> etc... meanwhile my ex lives off the tax payers. Why should he get to
keep
> his license and I made to pay to keep a roof over his head?

Well, Tracy, this is how I look at it. If he has never paid a penny in
support even though there is a longstanding order against him, do you really
think that taking away his driver's license would keep him from driving?
That's the problem with the whole system! The people who really need to be
*forced* to support their children are, for the most part, ignoring the
whole thing and being ignored by the system because it would cost too much
effort to go after them. Or the amount collected would be less than the
cost of going after them. So the people who are even half way decent are
being squeezed, because they are easier targets. Same with the driver's
license thing--who is really being affected by it? The real bums? No--they
just drive anyway. My dad always used to say "Locks are meant to keep
honest people out!" That's about how I feel about this system.

teachrmama
August 22nd 03, 06:16 AM
"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:ESf1b.170832$Oz4.44920@rwcrnsc54...
> "The DaveŠ" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tracy" wrote
> > > Do you feel a CP should have a license because they have to provide
for
> > the
> > > children too? I mean really - if it is good for one it should be good
> for
> > > the other, right?
> >
> > As long as there are no other reasons not to (i.e.: DUI, actually pass
the
> > test, etc.), there's no reason a CP can't have a license. And, yes, the
> > same standards should apply to NCPs.
> >
> > > What if the CP can't afford to have a car because the NCP doesn't pay
> > > support? Meanwhile the NCP has a car, license, etc... must be nice,
> > right?
> >
> > I think most feel (well, at least me) that it doesn't help for the
> > government to throw up roadblocks and make it more difficult for the NCP
> to
> > be able to earn the money that the government is requiring be paid in
CS.
> > IOW: the government is virtually guaranteeing the NCP's continued
failure.
> > This particular method is counterproductive.
>
>
> You didn't address my questions directly, but avoided answering it. Most
in
> this group are aware of my opinion concerning the roadblocks for NCP's. I
> would like to know how these same people who strongly believe a car is a
> necessity for the NCP feel when it is reversed - the NCP is the primary
> cause for the CP to have no transportation (other than foot) because the
NCP
> doesn't pay *any* child support. In other words - let's talk about the
> direct opposite for a moment.
>
> I went for more than 10 years without a car and I supported my oldest two
> sons 100% during that time. My ex did not pay the court ordered support
of
> $171/month for two children. Of course he wasn't order to pay that until
> more than 7 years after our divorce - more than 8 years after his
> conviction - almost 9 years after he lost custody. He wasn't around to
> support them in any fashion. I had no car. I had no license. I didn't
see
> any reason to have a license when I couldn't afford to have a car.
> $171/month would have made the difference - as I had put my children prior
> to my own needs. Remember - I've gone through that story before.
>
> So TM... why would it be fair that my ex should retain his license to
drive
> when he isn't being forced to pay child support, and for a long period of
> time I went without transportation? He owes me well over $17k since he
has
> never paid a dime in support since he was ordered to. Why should I be
> forced to suffer like that and he shouldn't? I worked my ass off to get
to
> where I'm at today. I'm the one who went into debt with student loans,
> etc... meanwhile my ex lives off the tax payers. Why should he get to
keep
> his license and I made to pay to keep a roof over his head?

Well, Tracy, this is how I look at it. If he has never paid a penny in
support even though there is a longstanding order against him, do you really
think that taking away his driver's license would keep him from driving?
That's the problem with the whole system! The people who really need to be
*forced* to support their children are, for the most part, ignoring the
whole thing and being ignored by the system because it would cost too much
effort to go after them. Or the amount collected would be less than the
cost of going after them. So the people who are even half way decent are
being squeezed, because they are easier targets. Same with the driver's
license thing--who is really being affected by it? The real bums? No--they
just drive anyway. My dad always used to say "Locks are meant to keep
honest people out!" That's about how I feel about this system.

The DaveŠ
August 22nd 03, 07:16 AM
> Tracy wrote:
> You didn't address my questions directly, but avoided answering it.
> Most in this group are aware of my opinion concerning the roadblocks
> for NCP's. I would like to know how these same people who strongly
> believe a car is a necessity for the NCP feel when it is reversed -
> the NCP is the primary cause for the CP to have no transportation
> (other than foot) because the NCP doesn't pay any child support. In
> other words - let's talk about the direct opposite for a moment.

You're right. I didn't answer directly, but I did answer indirectly.

> I went for more than 10 years without a car and I supported my oldest
> two sons 100% during that time. My ex did not pay the court ordered
> support of $171/month for two children. Of course he wasn't order to
> pay that until more than 7 years after our divorce - more than 8
> years after his conviction - almost 9 years after he lost custody.
> He wasn't around to support them in any fashion. I had no car. I
> had no license. I didn't see any reason to have a license when I
> couldn't afford to have a car. $171/month would have made the
> difference - as I had put my children prior to my own needs.
> Remember - I've gone through that story before.

You still should have maintained a licence, if possible. If for no
other reason than the occasional time you may have been able to borrow
a car, or whatever.

> So TM... why would it be fair that my ex should retain his license to
> drive when he isn't being forced to pay child support, and for a long
> period of time I went without transportation? He owes me well over
> $17k since he has never paid a dime in support since he was ordered
> to. Why should I be forced to suffer like that and he shouldn't? I
> worked my ass off to get to where I'm at today. I'm the one who went
> into debt with student loans, etc... meanwhile my ex lives off the
> tax payers. Why should he get to keep his license and I made to pay
> to keep a roof over his head?

Because, the law should provide for a blanket punishment for all just
because of a few. Fact is, the vast majority of fathers do care, and
do try, and do need their licenses so that they can do their best.
Some will still fall behind. **** happens. But, when you take away
what has become an almost necessity in everyday living (not an absolute
necessity, granted) you do they very people you're claiming to help
(the kids) a disservice. Is it totally fair on both sides? No.
Sometimes the best answer is not the totally "fair" answer.

I also belive that punishment in civil matters should relate to the
crime. Driving pentalties should be for driving offenses only, no
exceptions. But, I digress.

> I know I'm not the only person in this boat...

No, you're not. But, again, penalizing the many for the transgressions
of the few is not right, either.

The DaveŠ
August 22nd 03, 07:16 AM
> Tracy wrote:
> You didn't address my questions directly, but avoided answering it.
> Most in this group are aware of my opinion concerning the roadblocks
> for NCP's. I would like to know how these same people who strongly
> believe a car is a necessity for the NCP feel when it is reversed -
> the NCP is the primary cause for the CP to have no transportation
> (other than foot) because the NCP doesn't pay any child support. In
> other words - let's talk about the direct opposite for a moment.

You're right. I didn't answer directly, but I did answer indirectly.

> I went for more than 10 years without a car and I supported my oldest
> two sons 100% during that time. My ex did not pay the court ordered
> support of $171/month for two children. Of course he wasn't order to
> pay that until more than 7 years after our divorce - more than 8
> years after his conviction - almost 9 years after he lost custody.
> He wasn't around to support them in any fashion. I had no car. I
> had no license. I didn't see any reason to have a license when I
> couldn't afford to have a car. $171/month would have made the
> difference - as I had put my children prior to my own needs.
> Remember - I've gone through that story before.

You still should have maintained a licence, if possible. If for no
other reason than the occasional time you may have been able to borrow
a car, or whatever.

> So TM... why would it be fair that my ex should retain his license to
> drive when he isn't being forced to pay child support, and for a long
> period of time I went without transportation? He owes me well over
> $17k since he has never paid a dime in support since he was ordered
> to. Why should I be forced to suffer like that and he shouldn't? I
> worked my ass off to get to where I'm at today. I'm the one who went
> into debt with student loans, etc... meanwhile my ex lives off the
> tax payers. Why should he get to keep his license and I made to pay
> to keep a roof over his head?

Because, the law should provide for a blanket punishment for all just
because of a few. Fact is, the vast majority of fathers do care, and
do try, and do need their licenses so that they can do their best.
Some will still fall behind. **** happens. But, when you take away
what has become an almost necessity in everyday living (not an absolute
necessity, granted) you do they very people you're claiming to help
(the kids) a disservice. Is it totally fair on both sides? No.
Sometimes the best answer is not the totally "fair" answer.

I also belive that punishment in civil matters should relate to the
crime. Driving pentalties should be for driving offenses only, no
exceptions. But, I digress.

> I know I'm not the only person in this boat...

No, you're not. But, again, penalizing the many for the transgressions
of the few is not right, either.

ARC
August 23rd 03, 04:35 AM
>>>
>>>>No problem, they don't pay child support because they can't drive to
>>>>work? Heck, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. Then when
>>>>they get out, maybe they can find a job close enough they can walk to
>>>>work. That's when they start paying the back payments they didn't make
>>>>while in jail...
>>>>
>>>>Sounds fair to me!!!
>>>>
>>>>Tom - Vista, CA
>>>
>>
Hey folks, this sounds like sarcasm to
me........hmmmmmmmm........don't know why you are
busting Tom on this statement.......

sarcasm noun [U]
the use of remarks which clearly mean the opposite
of what they say

ARC
August 23rd 03, 04:35 AM
>>>
>>>>No problem, they don't pay child support because they can't drive to
>>>>work? Heck, just throw them in jail for a couple of years. Then when
>>>>they get out, maybe they can find a job close enough they can walk to
>>>>work. That's when they start paying the back payments they didn't make
>>>>while in jail...
>>>>
>>>>Sounds fair to me!!!
>>>>
>>>>Tom - Vista, CA
>>>
>>
Hey folks, this sounds like sarcasm to
me........hmmmmmmmm........don't know why you are
busting Tom on this statement.......

sarcasm noun [U]
the use of remarks which clearly mean the opposite
of what they say

observer
August 23rd 03, 05:02 AM
People who have kids must love poverty......I
never had kids thank god! I paid off my motgage 9
years ago, I retired 3 years ago, I'm not 50 years
old yet...........if you don't have kids
yet.......don't.......there are too god damn many
people here already........for every new person in
USA, 3 new cars are manufactured and 2 new homes
are built. To build a home you cut down a bunch of
trees......and every car takes more room on a
hiway that is already maxed out....everytime I see
a protester waving a sign about save the forest or
save this and that, I want to cram the pointy end
of the stick down that idiots throat. The
politicians are too guttless to raise the isssue
of overpopulation because that might mean the big
companies will have less customers in the future
and the CEO's won't be able to have multimillion
$$ mansions on the bay with the yacht tied up to
the pier in the back yard..........

buts that's just my opinion......

observer
August 23rd 03, 05:02 AM
People who have kids must love poverty......I
never had kids thank god! I paid off my motgage 9
years ago, I retired 3 years ago, I'm not 50 years
old yet...........if you don't have kids
yet.......don't.......there are too god damn many
people here already........for every new person in
USA, 3 new cars are manufactured and 2 new homes
are built. To build a home you cut down a bunch of
trees......and every car takes more room on a
hiway that is already maxed out....everytime I see
a protester waving a sign about save the forest or
save this and that, I want to cram the pointy end
of the stick down that idiots throat. The
politicians are too guttless to raise the isssue
of overpopulation because that might mean the big
companies will have less customers in the future
and the CEO's won't be able to have multimillion
$$ mansions on the bay with the yacht tied up to
the pier in the back yard..........

buts that's just my opinion......

Mel Gamble
August 23rd 03, 08:50 AM
>"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "SHELMCCALL" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait for th
>> child
>> > support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and are
>not
>> > paying will have the obligation met.
>>
>> They will certainly be waiting a LOT longer for support if the person
>> required to pay it can't work because they can't get to work, don't you
>> think?
>
>
>Do you feel a CP should have a license because they have to provide for the
>children too? I mean really - if it is good for one it should be good for
>the other, right?
>
>What if the CP can't afford to have a car because the NCP doesn't pay
>support? Meanwhile the NCP has a car, license, etc... must be nice, right?
>
>
>Tracy

How about taking the CP's license if they don't spend all the CS - PLUS their
own presumed amount - on the child? If it is good for one it should be good
for the other, right? Put that fancy new Jeep in the impound yard and throw
away the keys.....

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 23rd 03, 08:50 AM
>"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "SHELMCCALL" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait for th
>> child
>> > support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and are
>not
>> > paying will have the obligation met.
>>
>> They will certainly be waiting a LOT longer for support if the person
>> required to pay it can't work because they can't get to work, don't you
>> think?
>
>
>Do you feel a CP should have a license because they have to provide for the
>children too? I mean really - if it is good for one it should be good for
>the other, right?
>
>What if the CP can't afford to have a car because the NCP doesn't pay
>support? Meanwhile the NCP has a car, license, etc... must be nice, right?
>
>
>Tracy

How about taking the CP's license if they don't spend all the CS - PLUS their
own presumed amount - on the child? If it is good for one it should be good
for the other, right? Put that fancy new Jeep in the impound yard and throw
away the keys.....

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 23rd 03, 09:12 AM
There's another whole side to this issue. There are only a limited number of
within walking distance of any residence. A few more within biking distance.
Public transportation is a whole 'nuther thing and varies by city and
disappears in rural areas. The fact is, in today's world you severely limit
the connection between housing and employment by removing driving as an option
for traveling between the two, and it becomes even more of a handicap to
employment when jobs are scarce. You might say "so what - if he can't support
his kids, who cares if he has a job?"...but what about the OTHER effects of his
lack of employment? What about the fact that he's just one more person NOT
contributing to the economy? What about the fact that he's just one more
person who is a net DRAIN on our charitable dollars - whether private or
governmental? A few people may be glad that Mr. X "got what he deserved", but
he's going to be using the emergency room as a clinic when he gets sick - on
your dollar; he's going to be collecting food stamps - on your dollar. He's
going to be one more person with a hand out to collect what government and
private agencies have to give that in one way or another came from your pocket.

When they take an NCP's license away so he can't get to his (former) job,
they're not just cutting their own throats - they're cutting ours, too...
There ARE good ways to encourage NCP's to pay their support, but license
removal isn't one of them.

Mel Gamble

>"Tracy" > wrote in message
>news:ESf1b.170832$Oz4.44920@rwcrnsc54...
>> "The DaveŠ" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Tracy" wrote
>> > > Do you feel a CP should have a license because they have to provide
>for
>> > the
>> > > children too? I mean really - if it is good for one it should be good
>> for
>> > > the other, right?
>> >
>> > As long as there are no other reasons not to (i.e.: DUI, actually pass
>the
>> > test, etc.), there's no reason a CP can't have a license. And, yes, the
>> > same standards should apply to NCPs.
>> >
>> > > What if the CP can't afford to have a car because the NCP doesn't pay
>> > > support? Meanwhile the NCP has a car, license, etc... must be nice,
>> > right?
>> >
>> > I think most feel (well, at least me) that it doesn't help for the
>> > government to throw up roadblocks and make it more difficult for the NCP
>> to
>> > be able to earn the money that the government is requiring be paid in
>CS.
>> > IOW: the government is virtually guaranteeing the NCP's continued
>failure.
>> > This particular method is counterproductive.
>>
>>
>> You didn't address my questions directly, but avoided answering it. Most
>in
>> this group are aware of my opinion concerning the roadblocks for NCP's. I
>> would like to know how these same people who strongly believe a car is a
>> necessity for the NCP feel when it is reversed - the NCP is the primary
>> cause for the CP to have no transportation (other than foot) because the
>NCP
>> doesn't pay *any* child support. In other words - let's talk about the
>> direct opposite for a moment.
>>
>> I went for more than 10 years without a car and I supported my oldest two
>> sons 100% during that time. My ex did not pay the court ordered support
>of
>> $171/month for two children. Of course he wasn't order to pay that until
>> more than 7 years after our divorce - more than 8 years after his
>> conviction - almost 9 years after he lost custody. He wasn't around to
>> support them in any fashion. I had no car. I had no license. I didn't
>see
>> any reason to have a license when I couldn't afford to have a car.
>> $171/month would have made the difference - as I had put my children prior
>> to my own needs. Remember - I've gone through that story before.
>>
>> So TM... why would it be fair that my ex should retain his license to
>drive
>> when he isn't being forced to pay child support, and for a long period of
>> time I went without transportation? He owes me well over $17k since he
>has
>> never paid a dime in support since he was ordered to. Why should I be
>> forced to suffer like that and he shouldn't? I worked my ass off to get
>to
>> where I'm at today. I'm the one who went into debt with student loans,
>> etc... meanwhile my ex lives off the tax payers. Why should he get to
>keep
>> his license and I made to pay to keep a roof over his head?
>
>Well, Tracy, this is how I look at it. If he has never paid a penny in
>support even though there is a longstanding order against him, do you really
>think that taking away his driver's license would keep him from driving?
>That's the problem with the whole system! The people who really need to be
>*forced* to support their children are, for the most part, ignoring the
>whole thing and being ignored by the system because it would cost too much
>effort to go after them. Or the amount collected would be less than the
>cost of going after them. So the people who are even half way decent are
>being squeezed, because they are easier targets. Same with the driver's
>license thing--who is really being affected by it? The real bums? No--they
>just drive anyway. My dad always used to say "Locks are meant to keep
>honest people out!" That's about how I feel about this system.
>
>

Mel Gamble
August 23rd 03, 09:12 AM
There's another whole side to this issue. There are only a limited number of
within walking distance of any residence. A few more within biking distance.
Public transportation is a whole 'nuther thing and varies by city and
disappears in rural areas. The fact is, in today's world you severely limit
the connection between housing and employment by removing driving as an option
for traveling between the two, and it becomes even more of a handicap to
employment when jobs are scarce. You might say "so what - if he can't support
his kids, who cares if he has a job?"...but what about the OTHER effects of his
lack of employment? What about the fact that he's just one more person NOT
contributing to the economy? What about the fact that he's just one more
person who is a net DRAIN on our charitable dollars - whether private or
governmental? A few people may be glad that Mr. X "got what he deserved", but
he's going to be using the emergency room as a clinic when he gets sick - on
your dollar; he's going to be collecting food stamps - on your dollar. He's
going to be one more person with a hand out to collect what government and
private agencies have to give that in one way or another came from your pocket.

When they take an NCP's license away so he can't get to his (former) job,
they're not just cutting their own throats - they're cutting ours, too...
There ARE good ways to encourage NCP's to pay their support, but license
removal isn't one of them.

Mel Gamble

>"Tracy" > wrote in message
>news:ESf1b.170832$Oz4.44920@rwcrnsc54...
>> "The DaveŠ" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Tracy" wrote
>> > > Do you feel a CP should have a license because they have to provide
>for
>> > the
>> > > children too? I mean really - if it is good for one it should be good
>> for
>> > > the other, right?
>> >
>> > As long as there are no other reasons not to (i.e.: DUI, actually pass
>the
>> > test, etc.), there's no reason a CP can't have a license. And, yes, the
>> > same standards should apply to NCPs.
>> >
>> > > What if the CP can't afford to have a car because the NCP doesn't pay
>> > > support? Meanwhile the NCP has a car, license, etc... must be nice,
>> > right?
>> >
>> > I think most feel (well, at least me) that it doesn't help for the
>> > government to throw up roadblocks and make it more difficult for the NCP
>> to
>> > be able to earn the money that the government is requiring be paid in
>CS.
>> > IOW: the government is virtually guaranteeing the NCP's continued
>failure.
>> > This particular method is counterproductive.
>>
>>
>> You didn't address my questions directly, but avoided answering it. Most
>in
>> this group are aware of my opinion concerning the roadblocks for NCP's. I
>> would like to know how these same people who strongly believe a car is a
>> necessity for the NCP feel when it is reversed - the NCP is the primary
>> cause for the CP to have no transportation (other than foot) because the
>NCP
>> doesn't pay *any* child support. In other words - let's talk about the
>> direct opposite for a moment.
>>
>> I went for more than 10 years without a car and I supported my oldest two
>> sons 100% during that time. My ex did not pay the court ordered support
>of
>> $171/month for two children. Of course he wasn't order to pay that until
>> more than 7 years after our divorce - more than 8 years after his
>> conviction - almost 9 years after he lost custody. He wasn't around to
>> support them in any fashion. I had no car. I had no license. I didn't
>see
>> any reason to have a license when I couldn't afford to have a car.
>> $171/month would have made the difference - as I had put my children prior
>> to my own needs. Remember - I've gone through that story before.
>>
>> So TM... why would it be fair that my ex should retain his license to
>drive
>> when he isn't being forced to pay child support, and for a long period of
>> time I went without transportation? He owes me well over $17k since he
>has
>> never paid a dime in support since he was ordered to. Why should I be
>> forced to suffer like that and he shouldn't? I worked my ass off to get
>to
>> where I'm at today. I'm the one who went into debt with student loans,
>> etc... meanwhile my ex lives off the tax payers. Why should he get to
>keep
>> his license and I made to pay to keep a roof over his head?
>
>Well, Tracy, this is how I look at it. If he has never paid a penny in
>support even though there is a longstanding order against him, do you really
>think that taking away his driver's license would keep him from driving?
>That's the problem with the whole system! The people who really need to be
>*forced* to support their children are, for the most part, ignoring the
>whole thing and being ignored by the system because it would cost too much
>effort to go after them. Or the amount collected would be less than the
>cost of going after them. So the people who are even half way decent are
>being squeezed, because they are easier targets. Same with the driver's
>license thing--who is really being affected by it? The real bums? No--they
>just drive anyway. My dad always used to say "Locks are meant to keep
>honest people out!" That's about how I feel about this system.
>
>

J.D. Hoeye
August 25th 03, 11:38 AM
On 21 Aug 2003 23:49:12 GMT, (SHELMCCALL) wrote:

>Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait for th=
child
>support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and are =
not
>paying will have the obligation met.

i've heard politicians that said as much, in fewer words...

lets see: lose your job, lose your license, lose your ability to go
look for paying work, let alone get to work if some job fairy found
one for you...

the catch 22 makes more sense - wherein, by regulation, a pilot may
not fly if they are mental (read crazy... phobic or a phobic - either
works). which one must be to fly into harms way - into air space were
there is high risk of being shot down. however, if you are aware of
the fact doing so is dangerous, and would not do so intentionally do
so, then you are now sane, and must fly into the danger zone because
someone else tells you to... however if you do as you're told, and
actually do fly into the defined danger zone, you cannot be sane
because to do so is irrational and therefore by definition are
prohibited by regulation to fly...

it's circular reasoning - which means to think it, is itself defined
as psychotic - the result of mental psychosis...

get it.

no sane person thinks the military is run by rational leadership -
which leads me to believe there must be too many retired military in
public office. =20

(good a reason as any to pass a law linking drivers licenses to
delinquent child support payments.... =20

the english used to do the same thing at one time... failure to pay
financial obligations resulted in ones incarceration until the debt
was paid - and said incarceration removed any ability to ever make
restitution. =20

makes the same kind of sense - but the British were honest about it;
and here, we do the same thing without legislated statutes actually
saying that's what happens.

all of which poses the question - what should, we the people, do about
it?

is the 'we the people' concept no longer valid? =20

in practice, and a single word, yes.

to the original poster: the suspension of drivers license for falling
behind in CS payments is just one example of how our??? government is
systematically enslaving the population. there are as many others as
there are identifiable minority groups in this country. the gov gets
away with it because no one oppressive practice affects more than a
minority of the population. since no one oppressive set of applied
oppressive legislated regulations affects an quorum of the population,
no individual citizens care enough, if at all, about how the
government is oppressing most others, even if they are aware of any
other oppressive government practice since it doesn't effect more than
a small percentage of the total population.

and the process of limiting/removal/revocation of all personal
freedoms has accelerated exponentially since 9-11... and from what i
can tell, most of the population accepts it - and a vocal minority
applaud each proposed incursion into said personal freedoms.
"if it make it safer, then yes, search anyone flying, now... what's be
next? driving?

right.

=20
JD
If the Facts Fail to Support Your Position,=20
Manipulate the Data.

J.D. Hoeye
August 25th 03, 11:38 AM
On 21 Aug 2003 23:49:12 GMT, (SHELMCCALL) wrote:

>Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait for th=
child
>support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and are =
not
>paying will have the obligation met.

i've heard politicians that said as much, in fewer words...

lets see: lose your job, lose your license, lose your ability to go
look for paying work, let alone get to work if some job fairy found
one for you...

the catch 22 makes more sense - wherein, by regulation, a pilot may
not fly if they are mental (read crazy... phobic or a phobic - either
works). which one must be to fly into harms way - into air space were
there is high risk of being shot down. however, if you are aware of
the fact doing so is dangerous, and would not do so intentionally do
so, then you are now sane, and must fly into the danger zone because
someone else tells you to... however if you do as you're told, and
actually do fly into the defined danger zone, you cannot be sane
because to do so is irrational and therefore by definition are
prohibited by regulation to fly...

it's circular reasoning - which means to think it, is itself defined
as psychotic - the result of mental psychosis...

get it.

no sane person thinks the military is run by rational leadership -
which leads me to believe there must be too many retired military in
public office. =20

(good a reason as any to pass a law linking drivers licenses to
delinquent child support payments.... =20

the english used to do the same thing at one time... failure to pay
financial obligations resulted in ones incarceration until the debt
was paid - and said incarceration removed any ability to ever make
restitution. =20

makes the same kind of sense - but the British were honest about it;
and here, we do the same thing without legislated statutes actually
saying that's what happens.

all of which poses the question - what should, we the people, do about
it?

is the 'we the people' concept no longer valid? =20

in practice, and a single word, yes.

to the original poster: the suspension of drivers license for falling
behind in CS payments is just one example of how our??? government is
systematically enslaving the population. there are as many others as
there are identifiable minority groups in this country. the gov gets
away with it because no one oppressive practice affects more than a
minority of the population. since no one oppressive set of applied
oppressive legislated regulations affects an quorum of the population,
no individual citizens care enough, if at all, about how the
government is oppressing most others, even if they are aware of any
other oppressive government practice since it doesn't effect more than
a small percentage of the total population.

and the process of limiting/removal/revocation of all personal
freedoms has accelerated exponentially since 9-11... and from what i
can tell, most of the population accepts it - and a vocal minority
applaud each proposed incursion into said personal freedoms.
"if it make it safer, then yes, search anyone flying, now... what's be
next? driving?

right.

=20
JD
If the Facts Fail to Support Your Position,=20
Manipulate the Data.

J.D. Hoeye
August 25th 03, 01:33 PM
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:20:01 GMT, "Tracy" > wrote:

>"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "SHELMCCALL" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait =
for th
>> child
>> > support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and =
are
>not
>> > paying will have the obligation met.
>>
>> They will certainly be waiting a LOT longer for support if the person
>> required to pay it can't work because they can't get to work, don't =
you
>> think?
>
>
>Do you feel a CP should have a license because they have to provide for =
the
>children too? I mean really - if it is good for one it should be good =
for
>the other, right?
>
>What if the CP can't afford to have a car because the NCP doesn't pay
>support? Meanwhile the NCP has a car, license, etc... must be nice, =
right?
>
>
>Tracy
>~~~~~~~
>http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
>"You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
>*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
>
tracy,=20

i can't believe you said that... =20

on the other hand, that's the issue the linkage between non-payment
and drivers license was (is?) attempting to address. the problem
starts at the interpersonal relationship level between two supposed
adults who quit rather than working out their problems to start
with... then prove their maturity by continuing to act like children
of 2 or any teen age... further irritated by intervention of laws
written by short sighted legislative body members who pass acts
without considering any collateral effect of said acts - only the
intended affect... and, then the laws created by those ill-advise
legislative acts are indiscriminately applied outside the intended
scope of the lawmakers meaning, by rationalizations and failure of
those enforcing said laws to consider anything other than the letter
of the law.... =20

pretty sick isn't it? and all because the parents act more like the
children they are supposed to be providing for act.=20

it all comes down to selfishness on the part of everyone involved.
selfishness. isn't that a child's behavior?

changing tack:

at one time my x demanded that i expend some amount to provide some
things that i could not reasonably think unreasonable... however,
reasonable or not, not withstanding, want to or not, there was no
possible way for me to finance the needed aquisition's... not without
selling the tools and equipment of my trade; and, kick in my operating
capital too! =20

so i told her, sure, i'll pay the freight on one condition - that she
sit down with the books and figure out a way for me to do that and
keep a roof over my own head, much less continue to produce and income
without tools, equipment, a shop building or operating capital. if she
could figure it out, i'd go with it.

well... she did. she couldn't... but she tried the guilt card anyway,
'i guess the kids and i will just have to live in my car...'=20

(well, my car, but it wasn't worth the comment. it was hers to use. i
provided her with it, and several others over the years. i paid
insurance on them too. still... non issues.)

instead i said, 'they could live here with me... for now... which
would give you time to get yourself situated... a job... a place...=20

i'll buy your gas until you get a full paycheck... and you can use the
parts room upstairs to put your things instead of renting storage...
but you have to park out back and use the back door...=20

why she sputtered.....=20

unless your boyfriend is with you... i don't want anyone thinking we
live together... especially him...

you're crazy... there's no way i'm going to live in the same house
with you again...

good... there's no way i want you to either...=20

see... we really didn't like each other at the time - not at all. on
the other hand, there was/is no reason i/we or anyone should behave in
such a manner that takes anything away from our/their kids. =20

the situation solved all the problems of inability to support two
households without leaving the kids living on the street or without
the patenting attention of both their parents; and, enabled her to
actually seek and find suitable employment, income and housing too.

oh, there were issues... he boyfriend just couldn't get by the fact
they were staying in the parts loft over my shops offices in the north
west corner of my building while my kids and i lived in the apartment
built over the machine and tool rooms in the north east corner of my
building. (actually the banks...mostly). anyway, he just had this big
mental hang up over it - as if we were all sleeping in the same bed or
something... not that i really cared, then or now, if we had been; but
i'm sure that wouldn't have floated with my girl friend (wife now) -
or x for that matter! =20

the kids would't have cared either, just so long as their parents
didn't/don't fight-so long as their home is peaceful and felt secure,
safe, to them - and isn't that what matters? the kids physical and
emotional needs... as long as they're needs are provided for, none of
what we, the parents, want, do, or feel matters much, does it?=20

not really, no.

so, the real issue is that parents need to act like what they claim to
be, adults; and all the rest of the players get to sit out of every
ones live's...

too cool...=20

duplex's... i bet that's how they came to be; parents couldn't stand
to look at, much less sleep (have sex with?), each other! solution?
divide the house with a wall, each has their own doors, lives and
lovers; and the kids have their parents. all for little more than the
cost of a single home.=20

perfect solution. everybody gets what they need and the government
gets what they deserve too - nothing extra. control or money.

think, say, it's not possible? if so, it's because you're acting on
your emotions, not rational thought... and isn't that the operating
system of children, reacting on emotional impulse and compulsion?=20

i didn't and wont say adults don't have emotions. i am saying that
adults act on deliberately arrived at rational decisions and re-direct
their emotions to productive efforts... well, at least not destructive
and mean minded, un-caring acts intended to hurt others at any cost -
even their children's need for a physically and emotional safe home.

=20
JD
If the Facts Fail to Support Your Position,=20
Manipulate the Data.

J.D. Hoeye
August 25th 03, 01:33 PM
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:20:01 GMT, "Tracy" > wrote:

>"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "SHELMCCALL" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Maybe the mothers who expect to receive child support should wait =
for th
>> child
>> > support fairy to make sure those of you who have their license and =
are
>not
>> > paying will have the obligation met.
>>
>> They will certainly be waiting a LOT longer for support if the person
>> required to pay it can't work because they can't get to work, don't =
you
>> think?
>
>
>Do you feel a CP should have a license because they have to provide for =
the
>children too? I mean really - if it is good for one it should be good =
for
>the other, right?
>
>What if the CP can't afford to have a car because the NCP doesn't pay
>support? Meanwhile the NCP has a car, license, etc... must be nice, =
right?
>
>
>Tracy
>~~~~~~~
>http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
>"You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
>*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
>
tracy,=20

i can't believe you said that... =20

on the other hand, that's the issue the linkage between non-payment
and drivers license was (is?) attempting to address. the problem
starts at the interpersonal relationship level between two supposed
adults who quit rather than working out their problems to start
with... then prove their maturity by continuing to act like children
of 2 or any teen age... further irritated by intervention of laws
written by short sighted legislative body members who pass acts
without considering any collateral effect of said acts - only the
intended affect... and, then the laws created by those ill-advise
legislative acts are indiscriminately applied outside the intended
scope of the lawmakers meaning, by rationalizations and failure of
those enforcing said laws to consider anything other than the letter
of the law.... =20

pretty sick isn't it? and all because the parents act more like the
children they are supposed to be providing for act.=20

it all comes down to selfishness on the part of everyone involved.
selfishness. isn't that a child's behavior?

changing tack:

at one time my x demanded that i expend some amount to provide some
things that i could not reasonably think unreasonable... however,
reasonable or not, not withstanding, want to or not, there was no
possible way for me to finance the needed aquisition's... not without
selling the tools and equipment of my trade; and, kick in my operating
capital too! =20

so i told her, sure, i'll pay the freight on one condition - that she
sit down with the books and figure out a way for me to do that and
keep a roof over my own head, much less continue to produce and income
without tools, equipment, a shop building or operating capital. if she
could figure it out, i'd go with it.

well... she did. she couldn't... but she tried the guilt card anyway,
'i guess the kids and i will just have to live in my car...'=20

(well, my car, but it wasn't worth the comment. it was hers to use. i
provided her with it, and several others over the years. i paid
insurance on them too. still... non issues.)

instead i said, 'they could live here with me... for now... which
would give you time to get yourself situated... a job... a place...=20

i'll buy your gas until you get a full paycheck... and you can use the
parts room upstairs to put your things instead of renting storage...
but you have to park out back and use the back door...=20

why she sputtered.....=20

unless your boyfriend is with you... i don't want anyone thinking we
live together... especially him...

you're crazy... there's no way i'm going to live in the same house
with you again...

good... there's no way i want you to either...=20

see... we really didn't like each other at the time - not at all. on
the other hand, there was/is no reason i/we or anyone should behave in
such a manner that takes anything away from our/their kids. =20

the situation solved all the problems of inability to support two
households without leaving the kids living on the street or without
the patenting attention of both their parents; and, enabled her to
actually seek and find suitable employment, income and housing too.

oh, there were issues... he boyfriend just couldn't get by the fact
they were staying in the parts loft over my shops offices in the north
west corner of my building while my kids and i lived in the apartment
built over the machine and tool rooms in the north east corner of my
building. (actually the banks...mostly). anyway, he just had this big
mental hang up over it - as if we were all sleeping in the same bed or
something... not that i really cared, then or now, if we had been; but
i'm sure that wouldn't have floated with my girl friend (wife now) -
or x for that matter! =20

the kids would't have cared either, just so long as their parents
didn't/don't fight-so long as their home is peaceful and felt secure,
safe, to them - and isn't that what matters? the kids physical and
emotional needs... as long as they're needs are provided for, none of
what we, the parents, want, do, or feel matters much, does it?=20

not really, no.

so, the real issue is that parents need to act like what they claim to
be, adults; and all the rest of the players get to sit out of every
ones live's...

too cool...=20

duplex's... i bet that's how they came to be; parents couldn't stand
to look at, much less sleep (have sex with?), each other! solution?
divide the house with a wall, each has their own doors, lives and
lovers; and the kids have their parents. all for little more than the
cost of a single home.=20

perfect solution. everybody gets what they need and the government
gets what they deserve too - nothing extra. control or money.

think, say, it's not possible? if so, it's because you're acting on
your emotions, not rational thought... and isn't that the operating
system of children, reacting on emotional impulse and compulsion?=20

i didn't and wont say adults don't have emotions. i am saying that
adults act on deliberately arrived at rational decisions and re-direct
their emotions to productive efforts... well, at least not destructive
and mean minded, un-caring acts intended to hurt others at any cost -
even their children's need for a physically and emotional safe home.

=20
JD
If the Facts Fail to Support Your Position,=20
Manipulate the Data.

ME772907
August 29th 03, 03:54 PM
I am grateful that the state started taking away the right to have lisence
because if a parent would keep the Childsupport caught up to begin with they
would not have to worry about loosing them and futher more If you cant drive to
work and pay the childsupport why should you have the privalege to drive
anywhere else.....>ubject: Driving licenses and child support. Your opinions
please.

ME772907
August 29th 03, 03:54 PM
I am grateful that the state started taking away the right to have lisence
because if a parent would keep the Childsupport caught up to begin with they
would not have to worry about loosing them and futher more If you cant drive to
work and pay the childsupport why should you have the privalege to drive
anywhere else.....>ubject: Driving licenses and child support. Your opinions
please.

~August
August 29th 03, 04:41 PM
"ME772907" > wrote in message
...
> I am grateful that the state started taking away the right to have lisence
> because if a parent would keep the Childsupport caught up to begin with
they
> would not have to worry about loosing them and futher more If you cant
drive to
> work and pay the childsupport why should you have the privalege to drive
> anywhere else.....

Because if it is extenuating circumstances that make you fall behind, taking
away the drivers license accomplishes nothing... it especially does not
allow the person the opportunity to get back on their feet and catch up to
the obligation... which is the main objective.

~August

~August
August 29th 03, 04:41 PM
"ME772907" > wrote in message
...
> I am grateful that the state started taking away the right to have lisence
> because if a parent would keep the Childsupport caught up to begin with
they
> would not have to worry about loosing them and futher more If you cant
drive to
> work and pay the childsupport why should you have the privalege to drive
> anywhere else.....

Because if it is extenuating circumstances that make you fall behind, taking
away the drivers license accomplishes nothing... it especially does not
allow the person the opportunity to get back on their feet and catch up to
the obligation... which is the main objective.

~August

Mel Gamble
August 30th 03, 12:42 AM
My opinion? You screen name indicates who is the most important person in your
life and everybody else be damned. Hope a selfish, vindictive person such as
yourself just commented out of curiosity and not because you have posession of
any poor children.

Mel Gamble

>I am grateful that the state started taking away the right to have lisence
>because if a parent would keep the Childsupport caught up to begin with they
>would not have to worry about loosing them and futher more If you cant drive
>to
>work and pay the childsupport why should you have the privalege to drive
>anywhere else.....>ubject: Driving licenses and child support. Your opinions
>please.
>
>
>
>
>

Mel Gamble
August 30th 03, 12:42 AM
My opinion? You screen name indicates who is the most important person in your
life and everybody else be damned. Hope a selfish, vindictive person such as
yourself just commented out of curiosity and not because you have posession of
any poor children.

Mel Gamble

>I am grateful that the state started taking away the right to have lisence
>because if a parent would keep the Childsupport caught up to begin with they
>would not have to worry about loosing them and futher more If you cant drive
>to
>work and pay the childsupport why should you have the privalege to drive
>anywhere else.....>ubject: Driving licenses and child support. Your opinions
>please.
>
>
>
>
>