Michigan's Mike Cox is at it again - Warrants issued for child support

In article , Zimm says...

Funny how your assumptions are always that the poor deadbeats are all
living in squaller and have minimum wage jobs? What if they arent?
What if they own a yacht, are self employed and just a being a low-life
slug? Is it ok then?

I wonder how many of these kids are living below poverty level
themselves because their parents don't support them.

Zimm
===
I would certainly be interested in seeing data proving that child support
payments raise kids from poverty. (I have searched for it.) Of course, that
assumes that welfare kids have a relatively wealthy NCP who is refusing to pay.
My guess is that the wide majority of kids living in poverty have no such sugar
daddy. I'm also guessing that the majority of these kids have a mother who has
chosen not to further her education to increase her earnings capacity and remove
such kids from poverty. We have several NCP dads in this group who are saddled
with unreasonably high child support payments because the CP refuses to be
gainfully employed. OTOH, there are several CPs in this group who are raising
their children without child support and have risen to the task quite admirably.
If a custodial parent choses not to better herself, she might be described more
accurately as unmotivated rather than as victim. The responsibility for kids in
poverty rests equally on both parents.
===

(PLEASE NOTE: I never bottom-sign my posts.
Check Headers to Verify the Authenticity of This Post)

In article , Zimm says...

Funny how your assumptions are always that the poor deadbeats are all
living in squaller and have minimum wage jobs? What if they arent?
What if they own a yacht, are self employed and just a being a low-life
slug? Is it ok then?

I wonder how many of these kids are living below poverty level
themselves because their parents don't support them.

Zimm
===
I would certainly be interested in seeing data proving that child support
payments raise kids from poverty. (I have searched for it.) Of course, that
assumes that welfare kids have a relatively wealthy NCP who is refusing to pay.
My guess is that the wide majority of kids living in poverty have no such sugar
daddy. I'm also guessing that the majority of these kids have a mother who has
chosen not to further her education to increase her earnings capacity and remove
such kids from poverty. We have several NCP dads in this group who are saddled
with unreasonably high child support payments because the CP refuses to be
gainfully employed. OTOH, there are several CPs in this group who are raising
their children without child support and have risen to the task quite admirably.
If a custodial parent choses not to better herself, she might be described more
accurately as unmotivated rather than as victim. The responsibility for kids in
poverty rests equally on both parents.
===

(PLEASE NOTE: I never bottom-sign my posts.
Check Headers to Verify the Authenticity of This Post)

"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article , Zimm says...

Funny how your assumptions are always that the poor deadbeats are all
living in squaller and have minimum wage jobs? What if they arent?
What if they own a yacht, are self employed and just a being a low-life
slug? Is it ok then?

I wonder how many of these kids are living below poverty level
themselves because their parents don't support them.

Zimm
===
I would certainly be interested in seeing data proving that child support
payments raise kids from poverty. (I have searched for it.) Of course,
that
assumes that welfare kids have a relatively wealthy NCP who is refusing to
pay.
My guess is that the wide majority of kids living in poverty have no such
sugar
daddy.

I am always fascinated by people who believe fathers paying child support
will raise children out of poverty. To be very direct - it will never
happen. Children that are above the poverty level are there because their
mother's earn very close to or more than the poverty level before CS is
paid.

Let me explain. Welfare plus food stamps are designed by law to bring the
child up to 72% of the Federal poverty level. In my state, welfare is $503
per month and food stamps have a $150 value. That means $503 plus $150, or
$653 per month, is 72% of the Federal poverty level. Therefore, the poverty
level for the child is $907 per month ($653/.72 = $907). If the mother
doesn't work and remains on welfare and food stamps, the CS paid goes to the
state to reimburse those public assistance benefits.

And not until the CS ordered exceeds $907 per month will CS start to help a
child live above the poverty level because the state would pass-through the
CS paid in excess of $653 in sufficient amounts to move the child above the
poverty level. The Census reports the average CS order for mothers on one
or more public assistance programs is $294 per month. That means CS awards
for mothers on public assistance would have to triple to get the children
above the poverty level.

And, of course, as we all know, the mother uses some portion of the welfare
and food stamps to support herself, so she is taking public assistance
benefits away from the child making it even harder for the child's living
conditions to rise above the poverty level.

"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article , Zimm says...

Funny how your assumptions are always that the poor deadbeats are all
living in squaller and have minimum wage jobs? What if they arent?
What if they own a yacht, are self employed and just a being a low-life
slug? Is it ok then?

I wonder how many of these kids are living below poverty level
themselves because their parents don't support them.

Zimm
===
I would certainly be interested in seeing data proving that child support
payments raise kids from poverty. (I have searched for it.) Of course,
that
assumes that welfare kids have a relatively wealthy NCP who is refusing to
pay.
My guess is that the wide majority of kids living in poverty have no such
sugar
daddy.

I am always fascinated by people who believe fathers paying child support
will raise children out of poverty. To be very direct - it will never
happen. Children that are above the poverty level are there because their
mother's earn very close to or more than the poverty level before CS is
paid.

Let me explain. Welfare plus food stamps are designed by law to bring the
child up to 72% of the Federal poverty level. In my state, welfare is $503
per month and food stamps have a $150 value. That means $503 plus $150, or
$653 per month, is 72% of the Federal poverty level. Therefore, the poverty
level for the child is $907 per month ($653/.72 = $907). If the mother
doesn't work and remains on welfare and food stamps, the CS paid goes to the
state to reimburse those public assistance benefits.

And not until the CS ordered exceeds $907 per month will CS start to help a
child live above the poverty level because the state would pass-through the
CS paid in excess of $653 in sufficient amounts to move the child above the
poverty level. The Census reports the average CS order for mothers on one
or more public assistance programs is $294 per month. That means CS awards
for mothers on public assistance would have to triple to get the children
above the poverty level.

And, of course, as we all know, the mother uses some portion of the welfare
and food stamps to support herself, so she is taking public assistance
benefits away from the child making it even harder for the child's living
conditions to rise above the poverty level.

"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article , Zimm says...

Funny how your assumptions are always that the poor deadbeats are all
living in squaller and have minimum wage jobs? What if they arent?
What if they own a yacht, are self employed and just a being a low-life
slug? Is it ok then?

I wonder how many of these kids are living below poverty level
themselves because their parents don't support them.

Zimm
===
I would certainly be interested in seeing data proving that child support
payments raise kids from poverty. (I have searched for it.) Of course,
that
assumes that welfare kids have a relatively wealthy NCP who is refusing to
pay.
My guess is that the wide majority of kids living in poverty have no such
sugar
daddy.

I am always fascinated by people who believe fathers paying child support
will raise children out of poverty. To be very direct - it will never
happen. Children that are above the poverty level are there because their
mother's earn very close to or more than the poverty level before CS is
paid.

Let me explain. Welfare plus food stamps are designed by law to bring the
child up to 72% of the Federal poverty level. In my state, welfare is $503
per month and food stamps have a $150 value. That means $503 plus $150, or
$653 per month, is 72% of the Federal poverty level. Therefore, the poverty
level for the child is $907 per month ($653/.72 = $907). If the mother
doesn't work and remains on welfare and food stamps, the CS paid goes to the
state to reimburse those public assistance benefits.

And not until the CS ordered exceeds $907 per month will CS start to help a
child live above the poverty level because the state would pass-through the
CS paid in excess of $653 in sufficient amounts to move the child above the
poverty level. The Census reports the average CS order for mothers on one
or more public assistance programs is $294 per month. That means CS awards
for mothers on public assistance would have to triple to get the children
above the poverty level.

And, of course, as we all know, the mother uses some portion of the welfare
and food stamps to support herself, so she is taking public assistance
benefits away from the child making it even harder for the child's living
conditions to rise above the poverty level.

"Zimm" wrote in message
...
Funny how your assumptions are always that the poor deadbeats are all
living in squaller and have minimum wage jobs? What if they arent?
What if they own a yacht, are self employed and just a being a low-life
slug? Is it ok then?
--------------------------
If these people have so much money why doesn't the state have wage
witholdings on them and if they have fat bank accounts why doesn't the state
just take the money,(or the yacht)? Perhaps it's closer to the truth that
these people just don't have the money.

Sure, Cox says that all these parents have had the ability to pay. But I
read that in the past tense. Maybe at one time a person had a job, lost it,
got cs ordered based on their 'imputed' earnings and now have arrearages.
Voila! That person has *had* the ability to pay, (back before they lost
their job and had cs ordered).

When I read that somebody owes tens of thousands of dollars in arrearages
the first thing I wonder is how much of that number is actual cs and how
much is interest & fees that no kid will ever see. I think that is
something that the newspeople should show when they write articles like
this. It just such obvious political pandering.
----------------------

I wonder how many of these kids are living below poverty level
themselves because their parents don't support them.
-------------------
I think every kid that is living below poverty is doing so because their
parents, (plural), don't support them. If the parents are living in poverty
then so will the kids. But why is the state even dealing with non-tanf
(non-welfare) cases? They were originally supposed to deal only with
welfare cases but IMO there wasn't enough money to be made going after poor
people so they had to expand it.

~AZ~


Zimm


Dusty wrote:
Warrants seek child support
County, attorney general go after 27 people who owe payments

By ANGELA MULLINS

http://www.thetimesherald.com/news/s...ws/281840.html


The St. Clair County prosecutor's office, working with the state
attorney
general, issued felony arrest warrants Thursday for 27 people who owe
child
support.

The warrants -- issued for 26 men and one woman -- represent a combined
$1.6
million of the more than $64 million in child support owed in St. Clair
County.

The warrants, announced at an afternoon news conference with state
Attorney
General Mike Cox, carry a maximum penalty of four years in prison. Some
people will face possibly stiffer penalties because they are charged as
habitual offenders.

Officials said more warrants will be issued as soon as part of a
reinforced
effort to collect unpaid child support.

"All these parents have had a chance to pay, all these parents have had
the
ability to pay," Cox said at the news conference.

"Today's kickoff is the first step in a long-term campaign I know we
will
win."

The 27 people for whom arrest warrants were issued Thursday were chosen
partly because credit checks have shown they have the ability to pay.
They
owe money in amounts ranging from $13,000 to more than $100,000, and all
have been delinquent with payments for at least a year.

Dora Krumenaker of Port Huron said her ex-husband's name wasn't on the
list,
but she supports the effort.

Krumenaker said she is owed about $8,000 in child support.

"He never pays until we go before the judge," Krumenaker said. "They
need to
crack down."

County officials, including Friend of the Court investigators and staff,
will work with state investigators to identify more people for whom
warrants
should be issued.

Among those accompanying Cox on Thursday were St. Clair County Friend of
the
Court Susan Borovich and Senior Assistant Prosecutor Joseph McCarthy
Jr.,
who is running for county prosecutor.

------------------------------------------------------------
Yupper, that's the answer, arrest people for owing extortion money.

Of course, let's not ask the "debtors" about what's happening to them or
why
they did what they did (much less find out if they even have the cash
demanded of them) - just the nit-wits that want to be re-elected.

Hummm... let's play a math game shall we? 1.6 million divided by 27
"debtors" equals an average of $59,259.26 per person.

I wonder how much of that is actual CS and how much is really state
"fees,
penalties and interest"...

Of course the article states that MI went after those that "..have the
ability to pay..". Gee, does this mean that if any of them are working
at
minimum wage it rates as an "ability to pay"? Never mind if any of them
are
living in their cars (if they have them) or homeless shelters, low rate,
flea-bag apartments or cardboard boxes. Just go after the cash.
Screw'em
if it means they can't eat or see their kids; keep a roof over their
heads;
gas in the car to get to work (or to get to their kids). Just take the
money from them.

I wonder if there's a provision in those warrants to be sure to kick
them in
the balls when the cops take their wallets...

Now, don't take me to say that it's OK to not help your kids. I'm not
saying that at all. If these guys got behind for legitimate reasons
(lose
of work, poor health, etc..) and the courts ignored their pleas for a
reduction (bear in mind that the Bradley amendment prevents courts from
reducing CS for practically any reason), then I say get off their backs.

But if they are the "deadbeats" the media is so fond of shoving down our
throats, then they should pay up - but not to the extent that it
bankrupts
them and places them in the poor house. That wouldn't be in the "best
interest of the child" now would it?

"Zimm" wrote in message
...
Funny how your assumptions are always that the poor deadbeats are all
living in squaller and have minimum wage jobs? What if they arent?
What if they own a yacht, are self employed and just a being a low-life
slug? Is it ok then?
--------------------------
If these people have so much money why doesn't the state have wage
witholdings on them and if they have fat bank accounts why doesn't the state
just take the money,(or the yacht)? Perhaps it's closer to the truth that
these people just don't have the money.

Sure, Cox says that all these parents have had the ability to pay. But I
read that in the past tense. Maybe at one time a person had a job, lost it,
got cs ordered based on their 'imputed' earnings and now have arrearages.
Voila! That person has *had* the ability to pay, (back before they lost
their job and had cs ordered).

When I read that somebody owes tens of thousands of dollars in arrearages
the first thing I wonder is how much of that number is actual cs and how
much is interest & fees that no kid will ever see. I think that is
something that the newspeople should show when they write articles like
this. It just such obvious political pandering.
----------------------

I wonder how many of these kids are living below poverty level
themselves because their parents don't support them.
-------------------
I think every kid that is living below poverty is doing so because their
parents, (plural), don't support them. If the parents are living in poverty
then so will the kids. But why is the state even dealing with non-tanf
(non-welfare) cases? They were originally supposed to deal only with
welfare cases but IMO there wasn't enough money to be made going after poor
people so they had to expand it.

~AZ~


Zimm


Dusty wrote:
Warrants seek child support
County, attorney general go after 27 people who owe payments

By ANGELA MULLINS

http://www.thetimesherald.com/news/s...ws/281840.html


The St. Clair County prosecutor's office, working with the state
attorney
general, issued felony arrest warrants Thursday for 27 people who owe
child
support.

The warrants -- issued for 26 men and one woman -- represent a combined
$1.6
million of the more than $64 million in child support owed in St. Clair
County.

The warrants, announced at an afternoon news conference with state
Attorney
General Mike Cox, carry a maximum penalty of four years in prison. Some
people will face possibly stiffer penalties because they are charged as
habitual offenders.

Officials said more warrants will be issued as soon as part of a
reinforced
effort to collect unpaid child support.

"All these parents have had a chance to pay, all these parents have had
the
ability to pay," Cox said at the news conference.

"Today's kickoff is the first step in a long-term campaign I know we
will
win."

The 27 people for whom arrest warrants were issued Thursday were chosen
partly because credit checks have shown they have the ability to pay.
They
owe money in amounts ranging from $13,000 to more than $100,000, and all
have been delinquent with payments for at least a year.

Dora Krumenaker of Port Huron said her ex-husband's name wasn't on the
list,
but she supports the effort.

Krumenaker said she is owed about $8,000 in child support.

"He never pays until we go before the judge," Krumenaker said. "They
need to
crack down."

County officials, including Friend of the Court investigators and staff,
will work with state investigators to identify more people for whom
warrants
should be issued.

Among those accompanying Cox on Thursday were St. Clair County Friend of
the
Court Susan Borovich and Senior Assistant Prosecutor Joseph McCarthy
Jr.,
who is running for county prosecutor.

------------------------------------------------------------
Yupper, that's the answer, arrest people for owing extortion money.

Of course, let's not ask the "debtors" about what's happening to them or
why
they did what they did (much less find out if they even have the cash
demanded of them) - just the nit-wits that want to be re-elected.

Hummm... let's play a math game shall we? 1.6 million divided by 27
"debtors" equals an average of $59,259.26 per person.

I wonder how much of that is actual CS and how much is really state
"fees,
penalties and interest"...

Of course the article states that MI went after those that "..have the
ability to pay..". Gee, does this mean that if any of them are working
at
minimum wage it rates as an "ability to pay"? Never mind if any of them
are
living in their cars (if they have them) or homeless shelters, low rate,
flea-bag apartments or cardboard boxes. Just go after the cash.
Screw'em
if it means they can't eat or see their kids; keep a roof over their
heads;
gas in the car to get to work (or to get to their kids). Just take the
money from them.

I wonder if there's a provision in those warrants to be sure to kick
them in
the balls when the cops take their wallets...

Now, don't take me to say that it's OK to not help your kids. I'm not
saying that at all. If these guys got behind for legitimate reasons
(lose
of work, poor health, etc..) and the courts ignored their pleas for a
reduction (bear in mind that the Bradley amendment prevents courts from
reducing CS for practically any reason), then I say get off their backs.

But if they are the "deadbeats" the media is so fond of shoving down our
throats, then they should pay up - but not to the extent that it
bankrupts
them and places them in the poor house. That wouldn't be in the "best
interest of the child" now would it?

"Zimm" wrote in message
...
Funny how your assumptions are always that the poor deadbeats are all
living in squaller and have minimum wage jobs? What if they arent?
What if they own a yacht, are self employed and just a being a low-life
slug? Is it ok then?
--------------------------
If these people have so much money why doesn't the state have wage
witholdings on them and if they have fat bank accounts why doesn't the state
just take the money,(or the yacht)? Perhaps it's closer to the truth that
these people just don't have the money.

Sure, Cox says that all these parents have had the ability to pay. But I
read that in the past tense. Maybe at one time a person had a job, lost it,
got cs ordered based on their 'imputed' earnings and now have arrearages.
Voila! That person has *had* the ability to pay, (back before they lost
their job and had cs ordered).

When I read that somebody owes tens of thousands of dollars in arrearages
the first thing I wonder is how much of that number is actual cs and how
much is interest & fees that no kid will ever see. I think that is
something that the newspeople should show when they write articles like
this. It just such obvious political pandering.
----------------------

I wonder how many of these kids are living below poverty level
themselves because their parents don't support them.
-------------------
I think every kid that is living below poverty is doing so because their
parents, (plural), don't support them. If the parents are living in poverty
then so will the kids. But why is the state even dealing with non-tanf
(non-welfare) cases? They were originally supposed to deal only with
welfare cases but IMO there wasn't enough money to be made going after poor
people so they had to expand it.

~AZ~


Zimm


Dusty wrote:
Warrants seek child support
County, attorney general go after 27 people who owe payments

By ANGELA MULLINS

http://www.thetimesherald.com/news/s...ws/281840.html


The St. Clair County prosecutor's office, working with the state
attorney
general, issued felony arrest warrants Thursday for 27 people who owe
child
support.

The warrants -- issued for 26 men and one woman -- represent a combined
$1.6
million of the more than $64 million in child support owed in St. Clair
County.

The warrants, announced at an afternoon news conference with state
Attorney
General Mike Cox, carry a maximum penalty of four years in prison. Some
people will face possibly stiffer penalties because they are charged as
habitual offenders.

Officials said more warrants will be issued as soon as part of a
reinforced
effort to collect unpaid child support.

"All these parents have had a chance to pay, all these parents have had
the
ability to pay," Cox said at the news conference.

"Today's kickoff is the first step in a long-term campaign I know we
will
win."

The 27 people for whom arrest warrants were issued Thursday were chosen
partly because credit checks have shown they have the ability to pay.
They
owe money in amounts ranging from $13,000 to more than $100,000, and all
have been delinquent with payments for at least a year.

Dora Krumenaker of Port Huron said her ex-husband's name wasn't on the
list,
but she supports the effort.

Krumenaker said she is owed about $8,000 in child support.

"He never pays until we go before the judge," Krumenaker said. "They
need to
crack down."

County officials, including Friend of the Court investigators and staff,
will work with state investigators to identify more people for whom
warrants
should be issued.

Among those accompanying Cox on Thursday were St. Clair County Friend of
the
Court Susan Borovich and Senior Assistant Prosecutor Joseph McCarthy
Jr.,
who is running for county prosecutor.

------------------------------------------------------------
Yupper, that's the answer, arrest people for owing extortion money.

Of course, let's not ask the "debtors" about what's happening to them or
why
they did what they did (much less find out if they even have the cash
demanded of them) - just the nit-wits that want to be re-elected.

Hummm... let's play a math game shall we? 1.6 million divided by 27
"debtors" equals an average of $59,259.26 per person.

I wonder how much of that is actual CS and how much is really state
"fees,
penalties and interest"...

Of course the article states that MI went after those that "..have the
ability to pay..". Gee, does this mean that if any of them are working
at
minimum wage it rates as an "ability to pay"? Never mind if any of them
are
living in their cars (if they have them) or homeless shelters, low rate,
flea-bag apartments or cardboard boxes. Just go after the cash.
Screw'em
if it means they can't eat or see their kids; keep a roof over their
heads;
gas in the car to get to work (or to get to their kids). Just take the
money from them.

I wonder if there's a provision in those warrants to be sure to kick
them in
the balls when the cops take their wallets...

Now, don't take me to say that it's OK to not help your kids. I'm not
saying that at all. If these guys got behind for legitimate reasons
(lose
of work, poor health, etc..) and the courts ignored their pleas for a
reduction (bear in mind that the Bradley amendment prevents courts from
reducing CS for practically any reason), then I say get off their backs.

But if they are the "deadbeats" the media is so fond of shoving down our
throats, then they should pay up - but not to the extent that it
bankrupts
them and places them in the poor house. That wouldn't be in the "best
interest of the child" now would it?

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I think every kid that is living below poverty is doing so because their
parents, (plural), don't support them. If the parents are living in
poverty
then so will the kids. But why is the state even dealing with non-tanf
(non-welfare) cases? They were originally supposed to deal only with
welfare cases but IMO there wasn't enough money to be made going after
poor
people so they had to expand it.

~AZ~
------------------------------------------------------------
AZ, you have no idea just how right you are!

When the states found out that they could get unbelievable amounts of money
from the Feds, it became paramount for them that they include EVERYBODY
going through divorce into their extortion scheme. That's why they include
"fees, penalties and interest" into all their computations for amounts owed.

By jacking up the amounts collected, they fool the Feds into granting them
more money to spend to make more collections from those that can't fight
them and they (the states) keep the interest. The more they claim to
collect, the more grant money they get from the Feds to help with
collections to extort money from those that can't fight them and thereby
even more interest to keep .. and it keeps going and going and going.

It's self serving - so long as they can keep breaking up families - and get
away with it - it will never end.

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I think every kid that is living below poverty is doing so because their
parents, (plural), don't support them. If the parents are living in
poverty
then so will the kids. But why is the state even dealing with non-tanf
(non-welfare) cases? They were originally supposed to deal only with
welfare cases but IMO there wasn't enough money to be made going after
poor
people so they had to expand it.

~AZ~
------------------------------------------------------------
AZ, you have no idea just how right you are!

When the states found out that they could get unbelievable amounts of money
from the Feds, it became paramount for them that they include EVERYBODY
going through divorce into their extortion scheme. That's why they include
"fees, penalties and interest" into all their computations for amounts owed.

By jacking up the amounts collected, they fool the Feds into granting them
more money to spend to make more collections from those that can't fight
them and they (the states) keep the interest. The more they claim to
collect, the more grant money they get from the Feds to help with
collections to extort money from those that can't fight them and thereby
even more interest to keep .. and it keeps going and going and going.

It's self serving - so long as they can keep breaking up families - and get
away with it - it will never end.