ghostwriter wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in


IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE
BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF
THAT
HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT
IS
THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence!

SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the
solution to broken homes?

No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child
support is an excellent way to protect their children from future
abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap
babysitters.


Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the
mom
from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really
think
that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly
ones?
Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier
difficulties? Why pin it all on the father?

Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd.

I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the
foster care children are "*******s."

But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve
all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and
more money changing hands will fix every problem.

Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this
issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes
women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their
children's lives.

Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at
societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild
assumptions that fit an agenda.

Actually I think that I have been taken well out of context, the
fathers(or mothers) that dodge support and push their children into
poverty are *******s. The fathers(or mothers) that abuse their
wifes(husbands) are *******s. That is only a small percentage of the
total, a very small percentage.

The fact that the system has to be harsh in order to get as many of
those *******s as possible is not because good fathers should be
pentalized, its that not enough resources exist to weed the good
fathers from the bad and that given the choice between allowing the
small percentage of bad fathers to walk away and being overly harsh on
the good fathers, I freely and willing choice the harsh system.

I will have to see what studies have been done, my thinking comes out
of years of working with these children, but all of the percentages I
can think of were given to me by social workers (and I am aware they
are not the most unbiased of sources). And like I said the plural of
anectdote is not evidence so despite the many occasions were it was
blindly obvious that poverty was a major contruting factor to the abuse
of a paticular child, I will see if I can locate outside verification.

Since you have apparently already done a review of the available data
maybe you can give an actual site. If you possess the information
please share.

I dont disagree with the people that have major issues with paying for
a ex that wont work, nor do I think that payments should drive someone
into bankrupcy. I do however want the assumtions to be harsh and the
burden of proof to stay with the NCP. I suppose that I should mention
that I couldnt care less if the custodian parent is the mother or
father, but honestly placements with fathers are less of an issue since
finding paying work is easier for a healthly man(at any level of
education) than it is for a woman at the lowest levels of education.

By the way socialism would have the government paying for everything
these children need and then taxing the entire population to pay for
it, that is specifically what I am arguing against. A free market
economy is based on the concept that the movement of money creates
wealth.

But, I dont mind paying for a welfare state system, it keeps my
children from being mugged by a desperate orphan.

Ghostwriter

If you think the system is justified by a few misfortunate orphans,
that's about like Domino's using an eighteen wheeler to deliver
pizza's. You're not playing with a full deck are you?