"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ps.com...

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.

See Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre...cid/index.html

There is lots of data in this report but it doesn't get tied together into
the kinds of conclusions being expressed by you as having come from social
workers. There are sections on "Family Structure" and "Family Income" but
the economic data is characterized as being questionable because of so many
cases with missing data on income factors.

What we do know is the very low income brackets where abuse and neglect
occurs the most are also public money (welfare) cases. In those cases CS
does not go to the family. Instead, the family receives the public money
benefits and the CS paid is paid to the government to reimburse the public
money outlay. Whether CS is paid, or not paid, the family gets the same
amount of welfare benefits.

A way to check this is to look at the annual Census report on CS. The
average CS award for a below poverty parent is $2328 or $194 per month.
Those CS awards would have to go up 8 to 10 fold to cover average public
money benefits. The payment in full of CS at $194 per month is not going to
change the family's income. The only time CS helps a family in poverty is
when the CS award exceeds the public money benefits received and the amount
over the "current" benefits gets passed through to the family.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/child...ldsupport.html See table 4.