A Novel Idea for Custodial Moms

"Maya Lanza" wrote in message
...

"G" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Maya Lanza" wrote in message
...
Child Support should be increased by 25% for all recipients. It should
be
retroactive to cover those who have been driven into poverty because of
inadequate guidelines.

LOLOLOLOL, at least they are promising a solution to poverty! AMazing

I say we increase CHild support by 50% more, hell take it all.
God forbid there is poverty in America, land of the guaranteed income!



Seriously, $200 per month is simply too low.

I thought you said $500 in a previous post.

"Maya Lanza" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Maya Lanza says...
======
(I know it's a spammer who will never return but I'm feeling bottled up.)
======

Child Support should be increased by 25% for all recipients.
====
Indeed. It's about time the government requires custodial parents to
prove
they
are providing their share of support.

Why? It's not a current requirement and how does it help the CS?

Surely you are not saying that the father should be held 100% responsible
for the financial well being of his child, and the mother should not be
required to provide anything financially? Did the mother have nothing to do
with the creation of the child? Should the mother not be held just as
financially responsible as the father?



====
retroactive to cover those who have been driven into poverty because of
inadequate guidelines.
====
How about those CPs who are living in poverty because they refuse to
increase
their learning potential and provide adequate support for their children?

HTH are we supposed to do that when we're trying to feed and house our
kids?

Um, do you not think that this is what the fathers are doing also? Earn
enough $$$ to feed and house their kids? Isn't that what the child support
is for: to pay their 50% of the child's needs? Are you at least working to
provide for your own needs? Or is the father of your child responsible for
that also? And the government is responsible for you, I suppose.



====

The government should provide support to those who do not receive their
due
support as a result of delinquent, dead-beat dads.
====
Why should the taxpayers support them? The government should get CPs off
their
asses and demand they go to work /school to support their kids instead
of
treating them like an entitled class.
====
====


Taxpayers would only be responsible until the government is able to
collect
from the parents in arrears. I might point out taxpayers are funding the
collections services already. There is no additional cost involved as far
as
that goes.

Really? So you don't think that those who are struggling to make their
payments now would go under if 25% were added to their CS payments? Do you
also believe that if 25% were added, those who are deadbeats by choice would
jump for joy and start paying? Do you have any idea how many fathers have
accrued arrearages because they *can't afford to pay!* And you think that
adding to the amount they owe is ok--but YOU, as a custodial parent, should
not also be held to a higher standard? Perhaps a more objective look at the
issues might help you.

I hope that is some town in Latin America. The only filthy scumbags driven
into poverty refuse to get a damned job. Let's face it, you pigs,
"McDonalds is hiring." I don't give one rats ass what kind or number of
spawn you have, you can still earn a wage in our country. You should be
ashamed of yourself for breeding if you can't. Where the hell is Bob with
his assualt rifle?

Give the child to his dad and go get a job, or if you have a job work
overtime, or work and go to school to get a better job. If it is a teenage
boy, he probably needs his DAD more than you!!!!!
"Maya Lanza" wrote in message
...
It could take more than $500 a month to feed a teenage boy and that's
using
coupons. Go from there.



"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Hmmmmm. Inadequate guidelines. Poverty. How much do you think is
adequate
to support one child for 1 month?


"Maya Lanza" wrote in message
...
Child Support should be increased by 25% for all recipients. It should
be
retroactive to cover those who have been driven into poverty because
of
inadequate guidelines.

The government should provide support to those who do not receive
their
due
support as a result of delinquent, dead-beat dads.

Become a member today. http://groups.msn.com/25-percent-solution

teachrmama wrote:
"Maya Lanza" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Maya Lanza says...
======
(I know it's a spammer who will never return but I'm feeling bottled up.)
======


Child Support should be increased by 25% for all recipients.

====
Indeed. It's about time the government requires custodial parents to
prove

they

are providing their share of support.

Why? It's not a current requirement and how does it help the CS?


Surely you are not saying that the father should be held 100% responsible
for the financial well being of his child, and the mother should not be
required to provide anything financially? Did the mother have nothing to do
with the creation of the child? Should the mother not be held just as
financially responsible as the father?

Ah, but this is exactly what the form that RI wants me to sign to get my
name on my son's birth certificate says!

- Ron ^*^

"frankjones" wrote in message
lkaboutparenting.com...
I hope that is some town in Latin America. The only filthy scumbags driven
into poverty refuse to get a damned job. Let's face it, you pigs,
"McDonalds is hiring." I don't give one rats ass what kind or number of
spawn you have, you can still earn a wage in our country. You should be
ashamed of yourself for breeding if you can't. Where the hell is Bob with
his assualt rifle?


Yes Comrad, I mean your Honor!

Thank God we have people like you in America to dictate how the rest of us
should live!

BTW, I'll take a Macfish combo and make that to go Dork.

I can feed TWO teenaged boys for less than that a month.


On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 19:35:22 -0400, "Maya Lanza"
wrote:

It could take more than $500 a month to feed a teenage boy and that's using
coupons. Go from there.



"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Hmmmmm. Inadequate guidelines. Poverty. How much do you think is
adequate
to support one child for 1 month?


"Maya Lanza" wrote in message
...
Child Support should be increased by 25% for all recipients. It should
be
retroactive to cover those who have been driven into poverty because of
inadequate guidelines.

The government should provide support to those who do not receive their
due
support as a result of delinquent, dead-beat dads.

Become a member today. http://groups.msn.com/25-percent-solution

"Maya Lanza" wrote in

I say we increase CHild support by 50% more, hell take it all.
God forbid there is poverty in America, land of the guaranteed income!

Seriously, $200 per month is simply too low.

Who the hell gets a $200 CS payment? I have to pay $450 month plus another
$725 as bonus for not being imformed of this 3 years ago?

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 19:42:17 -0400, "Maya Lanza"
wrote:


"Gini" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Maya Lanza says...
======
(I know it's a spammer who will never return but I'm feeling bottled up.)
======

Child Support should be increased by 25% for all recipients.
====
Indeed. It's about time the government requires custodial parents to prove
they
are providing their share of support.

Why? It's not a current requirement and how does it help the CS?

Child support, by very definition, is the support provided to raise a
child... not a payment from an NCP to a CP. It helps child support in
that it would ensure that the CP is providing adequate support
according to the arrangement ordered by the court. If the NCP is
responsible for following court orders, is the CP not as well?



====
retroactive to cover those who have been driven into poverty because of
inadequate guidelines.
====
How about those CPs who are living in poverty because they refuse to
increase
their learning potential and provide adequate support for their children?

HTH are we supposed to do that when we're trying to feed and house our kids?

One step at a time. I've managed to do it while raising three
children. It took a long time, but I did it. Just for the record,
every bit of education you get makes your earning potential better.
It is not a "minimum wage until I get a degree" world.



====

The government should provide support to those who do not receive their
due
support as a result of delinquent, dead-beat dads.
====
Why should the taxpayers support them? The government should get CPs off
their
asses and demand they go to work /school to support their kids instead of
treating them like an entitled class.
====
====


Taxpayers would only be responsible until the government is able to collect
from the parents in arrears. I might point out taxpayers are funding the
collections services already. There is no additional cost involved as far as
that goes.


So you would agree that welfare recipients should pay back the
government any amount above and beyond what is collected in child
support? A CP on welfare is technically in arrears if the court said
the CP would be responsible for $X of the child's support.

I've always been attracted to the old maxim that prevention is better
than cure. Bob touches on this below, with his (no doubt tongue in cheek)
proposal for sterilization. However, a wider question is the issue of how
to remove the wide range of incentives for the CREATION of single parent
(read, fatherless) families.

It seems highly likely that the original message in this thread was
intended to do nothing more than excite heated reactions from the fathers
who would have to pay this extra money to the mothers of their children.
That issue aside, let's look at the practicalities.

Already, existing rates of "child support," in combination with the
continued glass ceiling on paternal custody, provide a major incentive for
mothers to create fatherless families. We already know, from boatloads of
research, that fatherless families are a disaster for children and for
society in general. Why on earth would we want to add to the incentives to
create such families? The best interests of children are served by growing
up in two-parent families.



"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Maya Lanza" wrote in message
...
Child Support should be increased by 25% for all recipients. It should be
retroactive to cover those who have been driven into poverty because of
inadequate guidelines.

I think this is a wonderful idea as long as the CS plus the extra 25% is
the
maximum amount to replace current welfare benefits, food stamps, and other
government subsidy programs designed to lift people out of poverty.

A part-time working welfare queen in my state pulls in $22,000 per year in
work subsidies, public benefits, and tax credits. Plus they get free
healthcare. The average CS award for a mother receiving one or more
public
assistance benefits is $3,400 per year. The extra 25% would increase the
average CS award to $4,250 per year. The difference between the $22,000
current public assistance benefits and the "new" $4,250 program would be a
significant savings for all tax payers.

Who wouldn't want to support such a plan? We could lift people out of
poverty by spending a lot less.

The government should provide support to those who do not receive their
due
support as a result of delinquent, dead-beat dads.

While we are having the government get more involved in our families, how
about having the government sterilize women who have children they cannot
afford to raise? That would reduce the need for child support, help
eliminate the deadbeat dad problem, and significantly reduce the need to
use
tax payer money to subsidize the baby whelpers. And the tax payers would
save even more by replacing the Department of Health and Human Services
with
a new, much smaller Department of Female Sterilization.