teachrmama wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
egroups.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.



You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will
reduce abusive boyfriends.

Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with
their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male
living in the household with the mother.

In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of
a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of
destitution.

I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and
frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement
that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really
make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child
support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the
households on the edge have more money and therefor more options.

No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's
easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different
thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting
hammered. And how is that helping at all?

And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see
your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system
does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have
ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never
willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will
get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does
without.

I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child
support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation
calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of
a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact
that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP
and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning
choice in the long run.

Ghostwriter