A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Strengthen families"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 29th 09, 07:24 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default "Strengthen families"



--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.

"Strengthen Families
Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible
Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government
penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support
payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state
bureaucracies."

So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of
"child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is blatantly
obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How could I be so
dumb...........

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families

  #2  
Old January 29th 09, 07:55 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
DB[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default "Strengthen families"

Once again politicians build their careers on the backs of the poor man!

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.

"Strengthen Families
Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible
Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government
penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support
payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state
bureaucracies."

So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of
"child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is blatantly
obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How could I be so
dumb...........

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families



  #3  
Old January 30th 09, 02:56 AM posted to alt.child-support
Kenneth S.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default "Strengthen families"

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:24:23 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.

"Strengthen Families
Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible
Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government
penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support
payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state
bureaucracies."

So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of
"child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is blatantly
obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How could I be so
dumb...........

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families



Chris's comment is very much to the point. Unfortunately,
there are two crucial messages that fathers' groups and genuine
defenders of traditional two-parent families have never managed to get
across to the general public in the U.S. and to policymakers:

(1) There is conclusive evidence that the best measure to prevent
childhood poverty is the two-parent family, and fatherless families
are a very good way of promoting childhood poverty.

(2) The "child support" system and the continued glass ceiling on
paternal custody are major incentives for mothers to create
single-parent families.

In 1990 a think-tank linked to the Democratic Party (yes, the
Democratic, not the Republican, party) laid out some of this in a
report titled "Putting Children First"
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...entID=2 54874.
Unfortunately, in the years since then, nothing has been done to
strengthen the two-parent family. The only measures taken to remove
the incentives for the creation of fatherless families were the
welfare reforms of some years back.
  #4  
Old January 30th 09, 03:29 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default "Strengthen families"


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:24:23 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.

"Strengthen Families
Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible
Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government
penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support
payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state
bureaucracies."

So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of
"child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is blatantly
obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How could I be so
dumb...........

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families



Chris's comment is very much to the point. Unfortunately,
there are two crucial messages that fathers' groups and genuine
defenders of traditional two-parent families have never managed to get
across to the general public in the U.S. and to policymakers:

(1) There is conclusive evidence that the best measure to prevent
childhood poverty is the two-parent family, and fatherless families
are a very good way of promoting childhood poverty.

(2) The "child support" system and the continued glass ceiling on
paternal custody are major incentives for mothers to create
single-parent families.

In 1990 a think-tank linked to the Democratic Party (yes, the
Democratic, not the Republican, party) laid out some of this in a
report titled "Putting Children First"
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...entID=2 54874.
Unfortunately, in the years since then, nothing has been done to
strengthen the two-parent family. The only measures taken to remove
the incentives for the creation of fatherless families were the
welfare reforms of some years back.


One problem I see with recent family programs coming out of Washington is
they have titles that sound great but they get implemented in ways counter
to what the title suggests they are about. And even more alarming is the
way these programs define "families" in various combinations of
relationships without a biological father being included in the definition.

A good example is the Fatherhood Initiative passed during the Bush 43 years.
The program was purported to be aimed at strengthening the perceptions about
the role of fathers and the importance of fathers in children's lives. In
reality the money appropriated to do what sounded like a fine program turned
out to be hijacked by the states and morphed into programs aimed at
encouraging fathers to pay their CS.

The bureaucratic mindset gets exposed over and over again to have
perceptions of fathers as deadbeats who don't pay CS so government needs to
educate men to provide money if you want to be a good dad. All of the
social science research that shows the value fathers bring into children's
lives gets distilled down to just pay up.

  #5  
Old January 30th 09, 09:25 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
DB[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default "Strengthen families"


"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:24:23 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.

"Strengthen Families
Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible
Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government
penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support
payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state
bureaucracies."

So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of
"child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is blatantly
obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How could I be so
dumb...........

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families



Chris's comment is very much to the point. Unfortunately,
there are two crucial messages that fathers' groups and genuine
defenders of traditional two-parent families have never managed to get
across to the general public in the U.S. and to policymakers:

(1) There is conclusive evidence that the best measure to prevent
childhood poverty is the two-parent family, and fatherless families
are a very good way of promoting childhood poverty.

(2) The "child support" system and the continued glass ceiling on
paternal custody are major incentives for mothers to create
single-parent families.

In 1990 a think-tank linked to the Democratic Party (yes, the
Democratic, not the Republican, party) laid out some of this in a
report titled "Putting Children First"
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...entID=2 54874.
Unfortunately, in the years since then, nothing has been done to
strengthen the two-parent family. The only measures taken to remove
the incentives for the creation of fatherless families were the
welfare reforms of some years back.


One problem I see with recent family programs coming out of Washington is
they have titles that sound great but they get implemented in ways counter
to what the title suggests they are about. And even more alarming is the
way these programs define "families" in various combinations of
relationships without a biological father being included in the
definition.

A good example is the Fatherhood Initiative passed during the Bush 43
years. The program was purported to be aimed at strengthening the
perceptions about the role of fathers and the importance of fathers in
children's lives. In reality the money appropriated to do what sounded
like a fine program turned out to be hijacked by the states and morphed
into programs aimed at encouraging fathers to pay their CS.

The bureaucratic mindset gets exposed over and over again to have
perceptions of fathers as deadbeats who don't pay CS so government needs
to educate men to provide money if you want to be a good dad. All of the
social science research that shows the value fathers bring into children's
lives gets distilled down to just pay up.


I couldn't be a dead beat even if I wanted to, I don't have a job!





  #6  
Old January 30th 09, 02:19 PM posted to alt.child-support
Kenneth S.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default "Strengthen families"

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:29:32 -0800, "Bob W"
wrote:


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:24:23 -0800, "Chris" wrote:

--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.

"Strengthen Families
Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his Responsible
Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government
penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support
payments, and ensure that payments go to families instead of state
bureaucracies."

So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of
"child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is blatantly
obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How could I be so
dumb...........

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families



Chris's comment is very much to the point. Unfortunately,
there are two crucial messages that fathers' groups and genuine
defenders of traditional two-parent families have never managed to get
across to the general public in the U.S. and to policymakers:

(1) There is conclusive evidence that the best measure to prevent
childhood poverty is the two-parent family, and fatherless families
are a very good way of promoting childhood poverty.

(2) The "child support" system and the continued glass ceiling on
paternal custody are major incentives for mothers to create
single-parent families.

In 1990 a think-tank linked to the Democratic Party (yes, the
Democratic, not the Republican, party) laid out some of this in a
report titled "Putting Children First"
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...entID=2 54874.
Unfortunately, in the years since then, nothing has been done to
strengthen the two-parent family. The only measures taken to remove
the incentives for the creation of fatherless families were the
welfare reforms of some years back.


One problem I see with recent family programs coming out of Washington is
they have titles that sound great but they get implemented in ways counter
to what the title suggests they are about. And even more alarming is the
way these programs define "families" in various combinations of
relationships without a biological father being included in the definition.

A good example is the Fatherhood Initiative passed during the Bush 43 years.
The program was purported to be aimed at strengthening the perceptions about
the role of fathers and the importance of fathers in children's lives. In
reality the money appropriated to do what sounded like a fine program turned
out to be hijacked by the states and morphed into programs aimed at
encouraging fathers to pay their CS.

The bureaucratic mindset gets exposed over and over again to have
perceptions of fathers as deadbeats who don't pay CS so government needs to
educate men to provide money if you want to be a good dad. All of the
social science research that shows the value fathers bring into children's
lives gets distilled down to just pay up.



I entirely agree with your comments, Bob. In fact, the
gravitational pull you describe applies even to some of the
non-government organizations that fathers might have thought to be
their allies in these battles -- such as conservative church
organizations and at least one of the groups that claims to be trying
to promote the notion of presumptive joint custody.

What it amounts to is that the core message of these groups
is, as you point out, that there is nothing more to being a good
father than paying "child support." After that, good fathers are
supposed to get out of the way, so that mothers can raise the children
and spend the money.

But ask yourself why is this happening and what should we do
about it. In my view, this message always comes out that way because
this is the only "pro-father" message that is acceptable to feminists
and those who want to curry favor with feminists.

I would like to see people being willing to attack feminist
propaganda openly. The objective should be to demolish the prevailing
notion that -- particularly in family problem areas -- women
invariably are innocent victims and men are evil perpetrators.
However, no one seems to start the demolition process. They're too
afraid of being labeled misogynist.

So I suggest that the immediate message should be the two
points that I made above. These boil down to the principle that it's
transparently clear from the research that children's interests are
best served by growing up in two-parent families. The incentives
should be for the creation and preservation of such families, even if
that entails removal of the bribes mothers are now being offered to
establish fatherless families.
  #7  
Old January 30th 09, 04:27 PM posted to alt.child-support
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default "Strengthen families"

Exactly, Chris. Men are nothing more than sperm donors who are forced to
abide by and finance the many choices of women.
Phil #3

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.

"Strengthen Families
Promote Responsible Fatherhood: Obama will sign into law his
Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the
government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding
child support payments, and ensure that payments go to families
instead of state bureaucracies."

So Obama is going to "strengthen families" by maximizing the amount of
"child support" extorted from men? Wait a minute, the answer is
blatantly obvious. By "family" he means a woman and her children. How
could I be so dumb...........

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/po...gthen-families



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Child "Protective" Services: Destroyers of Families fx Spanking 1 April 16th 11 05:43 PM
"Juro" is a newer series that resembles the "Museum," but features asmaller face and more subtle diamond inlays. The men's "Esperanza" model isthe most complex luxury model with the three minute, second andtenth-of-a-sec wholesale2 Spanking 0 April 26th 08 11:52 AM
Child "Protective" Services: Destroyers of Families fx Foster Parents 0 December 12th 07 12:03 AM
PHOENIX Arizonas in a state of "perennial panic," endangering childreneven as it needlessly destroys thousands of families... fx Foster Parents 0 August 21st 07 07:16 PM
New book! "The Best Old Movies for Families: A Guide to Watching Together" - by Ty Burr [email protected] General 0 March 3rd 07 07:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.