"Child Support" money?

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:15:06 GMT, The Dave© wrote:

Tracy wrote:
Let me also comment this way - let's say we have another CP who is
not being mean. She would like to contribute to this group. Like
I mentioned to Bob, this is not a CP/mother-friendly group at this
time. Instead of making statements that she has "missed the point"
and is expecting CS to cover 100% of the cost ("You seem to miss
the point that CS is not supposed to cover 100% of the child's
needs."), why not question why she is receiving so little.
Wouldn't you agree that $75/month is very little if her situation
is the norm (70% parenting-time)? Give Mary the benefit of the
doubt, and let her feel she can talk..

You're point is well taken about the friendliness of the group to
certain aspects of the issue. And, I agree that we should be more
friendly to open up better discussion, etc. In this case, the OP's
post was so overwhelmingly one-sided that I had to ask some basic
questions. She left out what I would consider very important
details. Details that I thought could have supported her point of
view very well, depending on what the thruth is. The degree of
one-sidedness seemed way to convenient for me.

See always have to turn things around so they fit your agenda.
Typical male victim crap.

When I came into this group I made ONE comment about a post and the
swarm attacked. They continue to attack anything they can.

You can't even address the very specific points/questions elsewhere in
this thread. Just to refresh your memory, they are as follows:

============
Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:49:40 GMT, "The Dave©" wrote:

mary Adrian wrote:
How I spent my son's $18.43 a week court ordered child-support
payments from a man making $65,000+ a year -OK let's see $1.50 a
day for lunch-that's 7.50. Another dollar a day for an afterschool
snack-another 5.00. This leaves me with $5.93 to help feed him for
the rest of the week. Hot damn we can afford that Top Ramen we have
the cravings for. Later, Mary

You conveniently left out how much money you make. That's factored
in, also. If you make $63,000 a year, then the amount awarded would
probably be about right. You seem to miss the point that CS is not
supposed to cover (in theory, at least) 100% of the child's needs.
You are expected to cover your share of the costs, too. And, you
don't mention the time-split. Is it close to 50/50? If so, he has
his own expenses concerning the child. You certainly don't expect
the child to go cold and hungry when at the father's house, do you?
So many variables, and your post was pathetically incomplete in
detailsI

Give me a break Dave,

Is there ever a time when you dont turn something into a Man is the
Victim crap.

18.43 a week? Thats ridiculous

Show me the exact wording where I portrayed the man as a victim. Be
specific. Be very specific.

Also, are you saying that what she makes is irrelevant?
============

Bob Whiteside wrote:
Now the facts are starting to make some sense. If the son is 26,
that means the CS order was being paid prior to the change in 1996
where most states eliminated the $25 pass-through and started keeping
100% of the CS to reimburse welfare benefits. The bulk of the CS
paid was being kept by the state to reimburse public assistance money
already given to the CP mother and the $18.43 per week was either the
legal pass-through amount or the amount left over after the benefits
were reimbursed.

IOW: He **DID** pay his CS, albeit indirectly.

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:15:06 GMT, The Dave© wrote:

Tracy wrote:
Let me also comment this way - let's say we have another CP who is
not being mean. She would like to contribute to this group. Like
I mentioned to Bob, this is not a CP/mother-friendly group at this
time. Instead of making statements that she has "missed the point"
and is expecting CS to cover 100% of the cost ("You seem to miss
the point that CS is not supposed to cover 100% of the child's
needs."), why not question why she is receiving so little.
Wouldn't you agree that $75/month is very little if her situation
is the norm (70% parenting-time)? Give Mary the benefit of the
doubt, and let her feel she can talk..

You're point is well taken about the friendliness of the group to
certain aspects of the issue. And, I agree that we should be more
friendly to open up better discussion, etc. In this case, the OP's
post was so overwhelmingly one-sided that I had to ask some basic
questions. She left out what I would consider very important
details. Details that I thought could have supported her point of
view very well, depending on what the thruth is. The degree of
one-sidedness seemed way to convenient for me.

See always have to turn things around so they fit your agenda.
Typical male victim crap.

When I came into this group I made ONE comment about a post and the
swarm attacked. They continue to attack anything they can.

You can't even address the very specific points/questions elsewhere in
this thread. Just to refresh your memory, they are as follows:

============
Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:49:40 GMT, "The Dave©" wrote:

mary Adrian wrote:
How I spent my son's $18.43 a week court ordered child-support
payments from a man making $65,000+ a year -OK let's see $1.50 a
day for lunch-that's 7.50. Another dollar a day for an afterschool
snack-another 5.00. This leaves me with $5.93 to help feed him for
the rest of the week. Hot damn we can afford that Top Ramen we have
the cravings for. Later, Mary

You conveniently left out how much money you make. That's factored
in, also. If you make $63,000 a year, then the amount awarded would
probably be about right. You seem to miss the point that CS is not
supposed to cover (in theory, at least) 100% of the child's needs.
You are expected to cover your share of the costs, too. And, you
don't mention the time-split. Is it close to 50/50? If so, he has
his own expenses concerning the child. You certainly don't expect
the child to go cold and hungry when at the father's house, do you?
So many variables, and your post was pathetically incomplete in
detailsI

Give me a break Dave,

Is there ever a time when you dont turn something into a Man is the
Victim crap.

18.43 a week? Thats ridiculous

Show me the exact wording where I portrayed the man as a victim. Be
specific. Be very specific.

Also, are you saying that what she makes is irrelevant?
============

Bob Whiteside wrote:
Now the facts are starting to make some sense. If the son is 26,
that means the CS order was being paid prior to the change in 1996
where most states eliminated the $25 pass-through and started keeping
100% of the CS to reimburse welfare benefits. The bulk of the CS
paid was being kept by the state to reimburse public assistance money
already given to the CP mother and the $18.43 per week was either the
legal pass-through amount or the amount left over after the benefits
were reimbursed.

IOW: He **DID** pay his CS, albeit indirectly.

It was sarcastic Tiffunny.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:35:54 -0500, "Tiffany"
wrote:

You obviously haven't read back posts from Mel to know his situation or you
would realize how dumb that comment is.


Fighting For Kids wrote in message
.. .
My name is Melvin Gamble. I really have nothing better to do with my
time than feel sorry for myself . I really screwed things up
formyself , but its far easier to blame someone else. You know use
the mother as the scapegoat for all my bad choices and blame the
system for my current problems.


On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:31:07 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Fighting for Air would see a flying pig and holler "deadbeat"....she's
back into her I-lost-track-of-the-logic-so-I'll-just-toss-random-insults
mode.

Mel Gamble

Paul Fritz wrote:

ASSuming. why am I not surprised.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:38:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:


It's not being nasty - when you see a flying pig, you don't say "My,
what a strange bird...", you YELL "Hey, look - it's a freaking
flying
pig!" Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious to dance around
about.

Mel Gamble

Gee I see a deadbeat... and another and another..

It was sarcastic Tiffunny.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:35:54 -0500, "Tiffany"
wrote:

You obviously haven't read back posts from Mel to know his situation or you
would realize how dumb that comment is.


Fighting For Kids wrote in message
.. .
My name is Melvin Gamble. I really have nothing better to do with my
time than feel sorry for myself . I really screwed things up
formyself , but its far easier to blame someone else. You know use
the mother as the scapegoat for all my bad choices and blame the
system for my current problems.


On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:31:07 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Fighting for Air would see a flying pig and holler "deadbeat"....she's
back into her I-lost-track-of-the-logic-so-I'll-just-toss-random-insults
mode.

Mel Gamble

Paul Fritz wrote:

ASSuming. why am I not surprised.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:38:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:


It's not being nasty - when you see a flying pig, you don't say "My,
what a strange bird...", you YELL "Hey, look - it's a freaking
flying
pig!" Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious to dance around
about.

Mel Gamble

Gee I see a deadbeat... and another and another..

Screw you asshole. You think its fun to be on welfare or something?
Making rude comments at others expense how nice.

Get a life.


On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:23:52 -0800, "Paul Fritz"
wrote:

While you are digging your foot out of your mouth, you might realize that
the 18.43 a week was the balance not being kept for welfare
reimbursement.......seems the other money grubbing mommy wasn't capable of
even supporting herself and needed big daddy guvmint to do it for her.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:40:33 -0800, "Paul Fritz"
wrote:


"stealing for mommies" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:49:40 GMT, "The Dave©" wrote:

18.43 a week? Thats ridiculous

only in your man=bad women=good alternate reality


No on my 18.43 a week for support is a joke for anyone.

Screw you asshole. You think its fun to be on welfare or something?
Making rude comments at others expense how nice.

Get a life.


On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:23:52 -0800, "Paul Fritz"
wrote:

While you are digging your foot out of your mouth, you might realize that
the 18.43 a week was the balance not being kept for welfare
reimbursement.......seems the other money grubbing mommy wasn't capable of
even supporting herself and needed big daddy guvmint to do it for her.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:40:33 -0800, "Paul Fritz"
wrote:


"stealing for mommies" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:49:40 GMT, "The Dave©" wrote:

18.43 a week? Thats ridiculous

only in your man=bad women=good alternate reality


No on my 18.43 a week for support is a joke for anyone.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:53:30 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:




My theory on what happens here is different. I believe some women rely on
other women for sympathy and moral support, and they get used to playing a
"poor me" role to illicit the reaction they seek.

My theory on what happens here is different. I belive some men rely
on other men and second wives for sympathy and moral support, and they
get used to playing a "poor me" role to illicit the reaction they
seek.


When those types of women
come to a-c-s with their regular approach, they get a different reaction
than they expect.

When those types of men come to A*C*S with their regular approach,
they get a different reaction than they expect.

The knowledge about CS and family law issues is far above
the norm in this group.

The knowldge about CS and family law issues is tainted by the croines
in this group. They use other's comments as their own and have even
taken articles against their position and inserted words in places so
the article reads here as supporting their postition. Bob, is really
good about doing this, and then cries when he is caught.

The men give the sympathy seeking CP mothers an
earful about the other side of the equation, and the women call them on
their attempts to seek out sympathy and support.

The women give the sympathy seeking NCP father an earful about the
other side of the equation, and the men call them on their attempts to
see out sympathy and support.

The people here see
through the games and challenge questionable statements very directly to get
to the core issues.

The people here see throught the games and challege questionable
statements very directly to get to the core isuses. Then when a
woman makes a valid point, the men and their second wive suckups all
start to attack like a swarm. They are relentless and when all else
fails, start to attack anything they can about the person often making
things up about them that would fit their view.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:53:30 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:




My theory on what happens here is different. I believe some women rely on
other women for sympathy and moral support, and they get used to playing a
"poor me" role to illicit the reaction they seek.

My theory on what happens here is different. I belive some men rely
on other men and second wives for sympathy and moral support, and they
get used to playing a "poor me" role to illicit the reaction they
seek.


When those types of women
come to a-c-s with their regular approach, they get a different reaction
than they expect.

When those types of men come to A*C*S with their regular approach,
they get a different reaction than they expect.

The knowledge about CS and family law issues is far above
the norm in this group.

The knowldge about CS and family law issues is tainted by the croines
in this group. They use other's comments as their own and have even
taken articles against their position and inserted words in places so
the article reads here as supporting their postition. Bob, is really
good about doing this, and then cries when he is caught.

The men give the sympathy seeking CP mothers an
earful about the other side of the equation, and the women call them on
their attempts to seek out sympathy and support.

The women give the sympathy seeking NCP father an earful about the
other side of the equation, and the men call them on their attempts to
see out sympathy and support.

The people here see
through the games and challenge questionable statements very directly to get
to the core issues.

The people here see throught the games and challege questionable
statements very directly to get to the core isuses. Then when a
woman makes a valid point, the men and their second wive suckups all
start to attack like a swarm. They are relentless and when all else
fails, start to attack anything they can about the person often making
things up about them that would fit their view.