Child Support - When Does Child Support End?

"Very Determined!" wrote
............................................

...I personally do not see a father any
less a parent than a mother, by any means. But how do men consider
themselves "equal" to women if they do not carry or birth a child?
===
GAWD... there's a profound question of nature. Hey, we could have all kinds
of fun with this one.
Bob, how can your ex be equal to you since she isn't married to you? TM, how
can six year olds be equal to
five year olds if they aren't five? Off with the heads of all six year olds!

"Very Determined!" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 8:52 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Gini" wrote in
messagenews:xXo6j.301$xd.83@trndny03...

"teachrmama" wrote

"DB" wrote

"teachrmama" wrote in

BTW, you never answered my question: When a man cannot be forced to
pay child support by the system, and the woman is incapable of
supporting her own child(ren), do you think the taxpayers should
pick
up the tab?

Sorry Teach, but that's the exact mentality that this system feeds
on!

Oh, I know. The system costs a ridiculous amount of money to run, and
the amount they collect that would not be paid anyway probably does
not
cover the amount the system costs. I am just curious, since she
thinks
that men should be financially responsible for children that they help
create, whether she thinks wo,en should be held to any sort of
financial
standard also.
=====
EEEK! Women? Shouldn't have kids they can't afford?? I thought women
birthing babies was
right up there with Divine Right..It's only *men* who should keep it in
their pants if they can't afford kids.
Very Determined! said so. (I guess you must have missed that :-)

Oh, no, I saw it all right. I do not understand why women have a right
to
birth a child and expect only money from a man--because the taxpayers
certainly should not have to pay for the man's child!! But expecting a
woman to either support her own child or give it up for adoption is
depriving the woman of her rights. It just makes no sense to me. So,
maybe, if neither man nor woman is capable of supporting the child, the
child should be put into foster care, and BOTH man and woman should be
forced to pay via wage garnishment, or be sentenced to jail. Then both
are
being treated exactly the same!! Right?



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I understand what you are saying. I personally do not see a father any
less a parent than a mother, by any means. But how do men consider
themselves "equal" to women if they do not carry or birth a child?

What a bunch of sexist nonsense! How can women consider themselves equal to
men if they don't have the ability to provide the chromosomal make-up to
determine a baby's sex? Biology has absolutely nothing to do with equality.
Just ask a feminist!

"Very Determined!" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 8:52 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Gini" wrote in
messagenews:xXo6j.301$xd.83@trndny03...

"teachrmama" wrote

"DB" wrote

"teachrmama" wrote in

BTW, you never answered my question: When a man cannot be forced to
pay child support by the system, and the woman is incapable of
supporting her own child(ren), do you think the taxpayers should
pick
up the tab?

Sorry Teach, but that's the exact mentality that this system feeds
on!

Oh, I know. The system costs a ridiculous amount of money to run, and
the amount they collect that would not be paid anyway probably does
not
cover the amount the system costs. I am just curious, since she
thinks
that men should be financially responsible for children that they help
create, whether she thinks wo,en should be held to any sort of
financial
standard also.
=====
EEEK! Women? Shouldn't have kids they can't afford?? I thought women
birthing babies was
right up there with Divine Right..It's only *men* who should keep it in
their pants if they can't afford kids.
Very Determined! said so. (I guess you must have missed that :-)

Oh, no, I saw it all right. I do not understand why women have a right
to
birth a child and expect only money from a man--because the taxpayers
certainly should not have to pay for the man's child!! But expecting a
woman to either support her own child or give it up for adoption is
depriving the woman of her rights. It just makes no sense to me. So,
maybe, if neither man nor woman is capable of supporting the child, the
child should be put into foster care, and BOTH man and woman should be
forced to pay via wage garnishment, or be sentenced to jail. Then both
are
being treated exactly the same!! Right?



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I understand what you are saying. I personally do not see a father any
less a parent than a mother, by any means. But how do men consider
themselves "equal" to women if they do not carry or birth a child?

They simply are equal. They do not have to prove anything--a child has 2
parents, and that's just the way it is. Do you think that being looked at
as a walking wallet is the proper balance for pregnancy and child birth?

"Gini" wrote in message
news:Qxj7j.1527$CJ.1069@trndny02...

"Very Determined!" wrote
...........................................

...I personally do not see a father any
less a parent than a mother, by any means. But how do men consider
themselves "equal" to women if they do not carry or birth a child?
===
GAWD... there's a profound question of nature. Hey, we could have all
kinds of fun with this one.
Bob, how can your ex be equal to you since she isn't married to you? TM,
how can six year olds be equal to
five year olds if they aren't five? Off with the heads of all six year
olds!

chuckle What a simplistic and selfish way to look at things: Nature
determined that women become pregnant and birth the child, therefore *I* am
the important parent and you must spend your life making it up to me for all
I went through. And, BTW, you will always be a sub-parent--not a real one,
like me. snort

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:Qxj7j.1527$CJ.1069@trndny02...

"Very Determined!" wrote
...........................................

...I personally do not see a father any
less a parent than a mother, by any means. But how do men consider
themselves "equal" to women if they do not carry or birth a child?
===
GAWD... there's a profound question of nature. Hey, we could have all
kinds of fun with this one.
Bob, how can your ex be equal to you since she isn't married to you? TM,
how can six year olds be equal to
five year olds if they aren't five? Off with the heads of all six year
olds!

chuckle What a simplistic and selfish way to look at things: Nature
determined that women become pregnant and birth the child, therefore *I*
am the important parent and you must spend your life making it up to me
for all I went through. And, BTW, you will always be a sub-parent--not a
real one, like me. snort

Now is an appropriate time to bring up one of my little known facts I
learned along the way.

The word "hysteria" is derived from the Greek word for uterus. Hysteric
women were believed to be suffering from disturbances in their wombs.
Having female plumbing was thought to be the reason women acted oddly. Of
course, the Greeks were right and today we know women acting nutty is caused
by PMS, post-natal depression, and other hormonal disturbances, all directly
related to their ability to have children. :-)

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:Qxj7j.1527$CJ.1069@trndny02...

"Very Determined!" wrote
...........................................

...I personally do not see a father any
less a parent than a mother, by any means. But how do men consider
themselves "equal" to women if they do not carry or birth a child?
===
GAWD... there's a profound question of nature. Hey, we could have all
kinds of fun with this one.
Bob, how can your ex be equal to you since she isn't married to you? TM,
how can six year olds be equal to
five year olds if they aren't five? Off with the heads of all six year
olds!

chuckle What a simplistic and selfish way to look at things: Nature
determined that women become pregnant and birth the child, therefore *I*
am the important parent and you must spend your life making it up to me
for all I went through. And, BTW, you will always be a sub-parent--not a
real one, like me. snort

Now is an appropriate time to bring up one of my little known facts I
learned along the way.

The word "hysteria" is derived from the Greek word for uterus. Hysteric
women were believed to be suffering from disturbances in their wombs.
Having female plumbing was thought to be the reason women acted oddly. Of
course, the Greeks were right and today we know women acting nutty is
caused by PMS, post-natal depression, and other hormonal disturbances, all
directly related to their ability to have children. :-)

chuckle That comment ought to cause some hysteria!!

"Very Determined!" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 10:30 am, "Kenneth S." wrote:
"DB" wrote in message

...

"teachrmama" wrote in

BTW, you never answered my question: When a man cannot be forced to
pay
child support by the system, and the woman is incapable of supporting
her
own child(ren), do you think the taxpayers should pick up the tab?

Sorry Teach, but that's the exact mentality that this system feeds on!

Tax payers pay for this system any way you cut it, as long as the
government is involved, the tax payers always fund it!
Funny, we have no problem paying $Trillions for other wasteful purposes
and funding corporate welfare which 10 times exceeds the cost of public
welfare. It's only money, so what?

I'm not sure that this is the appropriate answer to teachrmama's
question. It seems to me that the right answer is that there is clear
evidence that people change their behavior in response to changes in the
financial incentives they are given. If you doubt this, remember the
debates that went on when welfare reform was being introduced. We were
told
people cut off welfare would be starving, etc. However, this didn't
happen,
because people who were no longer getting welfare found other sources of
income, notably getting jobs.

It would be similar with the system of perverse financial incentives
that is misleadingly called "child support."

If women could no longer force men to pay them CS, several things are
likely to happen. One is that there would be fewer fatherless families.
A
substantial reduction in the number of divorces is likely, since CS is an
incentive for married women to expel their husbands from their families.
Another is that the incentives for unmarried women to have children would
be
substantially reduced.

What we have now is a system of offering substantial incentives for
women to create fatherless families. Such families are the origin of a
wide
range of serious social pathologies. It is essential that ways be found
of
reducing these incentives. One way is by reducing or eliminating "child
support." Another is by ending the glass ceiling on paternal custody.

Maybe my ignorance is showing, but what about those families that
never receive anything....where is their incentive to create
fatherless families? Are all father less families intentional scams
procured by the women?and if not how many are truly?

You mean there are women who file for child support and don't get it?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Very Determined!" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 8:52 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Gini" wrote in
messagenews:xXo6j.301$xd.83@trndny03...

"teachrmama" wrote

"DB" wrote

"teachrmama" wrote in

BTW, you never answered my question: When a man cannot be forced
to
pay child support by the system, and the woman is incapable of
supporting her own child(ren), do you think the taxpayers should
pick
up the tab?

Sorry Teach, but that's the exact mentality that this system feeds
on!

Oh, I know. The system costs a ridiculous amount of money to run,
and
the amount they collect that would not be paid anyway probably does
not
cover the amount the system costs. I am just curious, since she
thinks
that men should be financially responsible for children that they
help
create, whether she thinks wo,en should be held to any sort of
financial
standard also.
=====
EEEK! Women? Shouldn't have kids they can't afford?? I thought women
birthing babies was
right up there with Divine Right..It's only *men* who should keep it
in
their pants if they can't afford kids.
Very Determined! said so. (I guess you must have missed that :-)

Oh, no, I saw it all right. I do not understand why women have a right
to
birth a child and expect only money from a man--because the taxpayers
certainly should not have to pay for the man's child!! But expecting a
woman to either support her own child or give it up for adoption is
depriving the woman of her rights. It just makes no sense to me. So,
maybe, if neither man nor woman is capable of supporting the child, the
child should be put into foster care, and BOTH man and woman should be
forced to pay via wage garnishment, or be sentenced to jail. Then both
are
being treated exactly the same!! Right?



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I understand what you are saying. I personally do not see a father any
less a parent than a mother, by any means. But how do men consider
themselves "equal" to women if they do not carry or birth a child?

I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in the above statements.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Very Determined!" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 10:30 am, "Kenneth S." wrote:
"DB" wrote in message

...

"teachrmama" wrote in

BTW, you never answered my question: When a man cannot be forced to
pay
child support by the system, and the woman is incapable of supporting
her
own child(ren), do you think the taxpayers should pick up the tab?

Sorry Teach, but that's the exact mentality that this system feeds on!

Tax payers pay for this system any way you cut it, as long as the
government is involved, the tax payers always fund it!
Funny, we have no problem paying $Trillions for other wasteful
purposes
and funding corporate welfare which 10 times exceeds the cost of
public
welfare. It's only money, so what?

I'm not sure that this is the appropriate answer to teachrmama's
question. It seems to me that the right answer is that there is clear
evidence that people change their behavior in response to changes in the
financial incentives they are given. If you doubt this, remember the
debates that went on when welfare reform was being introduced. We were
told
people cut off welfare would be starving, etc. However, this didn't
happen,
because people who were no longer getting welfare found other sources of
income, notably getting jobs.

It would be similar with the system of perverse financial incentives
that is misleadingly called "child support."

If women could no longer force men to pay them CS, several things
are
likely to happen. One is that there would be fewer fatherless families.
A
substantial reduction in the number of divorces is likely, since CS is
an
incentive for married women to expel their husbands from their families.
Another is that the incentives for unmarried women to have children
would be
substantially reduced.

What we have now is a system of offering substantial incentives for
women to create fatherless families. Such families are the origin of a
wide
range of serious social pathologies. It is essential that ways be found
of
reducing these incentives. One way is by reducing or eliminating "child
support." Another is by ending the glass ceiling on paternal custody.

Maybe my ignorance is showing, but what about those families that
never receive anything....where is their incentive to create
fatherless families?

The incentive is the PROMISE of financial gain. The deal is, they become
legally entitled to the loot as a RESULT of getting rid of the father; not
the other way around.

Are all father less families intentional scams
procured by the women?and if not how many are truly?

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
..............................

Now is an appropriate time to bring up one of my little known facts I
learned along the way.

The word "hysteria" is derived from the Greek word for uterus. Hysteric
women were believed to be suffering from disturbances in their wombs.
Having female plumbing was thought to be the reason women acted oddly. Of
course, the Greeks were right and today we know women acting nutty is
caused by PMS, post-natal depression, and other hormonal disturbances, all
directly related to their ability to have children. :-)
====
Yep. I think it is also the root word of hyssy fit. Did I spell that
correctly?