A Novel Idea for Custodial Moms

I will take him and love him for you if you pay me $200.00 per/month.

Signed,
Michael Jackson
"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.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
So you are saying that the boy's father pays $250 per month? And you
provide your 50%, right?


That's correct.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.





I said it could take $500 a month in groceries to feed a teenage boy.

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

"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?



Guidelines take into account your earnings. If you have to pay $450, then
you make enough to pay it. The additional $750 sounds like arrears which is
just an accumulation of the $450 not being paid.

"Maya Lanza" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
So you are saying that the boy's father pays $250 per month? And you
provide your 50%, right?


That's correct.


And what percentage of his pay is this $250? If that's all he is paying,
then he must not be earning very much. Sounds like he's somewhere around
minimum wage. Is that about what you are earning, too?

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
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?


Currently there is no such provision required. That's not my fault.




====
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.


These days its a "no job 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.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:13:41 -0400, "Kenneth S."
wrote:

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.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is no-fault divorce. Used to be
that couples were pretty darned sure that marriage was "til death do
us part" and engagements were long enough that the couple was
relatively certain they were not making a mistake. Nowadays, divorce
can be a thought before marriage. I'm serious. I had a friend who
was to be married within the week when her fiancee got rough with her.
I begged her to postpone her wedding in light of this, but her reply
was, "Well, if it doesn't work out, we can always get divorced." She
went through with the wedding, they had a baby, and were divorced
shortly thereafter.

The other part of the problem is that society now accepts single
mothers. Whereas when my biological mother became pregnant and was
sent away until she gave birth and gave me up for adoption, it is no
longer shameful to be unwed and pregnant. Girls are having
intercourse as young as 12 and, personally, I have difficulty
understanding how they got the opportunity. Heck, I had my clothes
boiled when I just KISSED a boy at age 14. It's a different world
and I don't know how to change it back.




"Bob Whiteside" 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.

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.

In article , Maya Lanza says...


"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 aren't suggesting that only one of a child's two parents should be
required by the government to support their children?
====


====
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?

====
I did it--Single mother of two boys. I worked part time and went to school full
time. Graduated with honors, too. And didn't collect a dime of child support.
====
====

"Maya Lanza" wrote in message
...

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

"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?



Guidelines take into account your earnings. If you have to pay $450, then
you make enough to pay it. The additional $750 sounds like arrears which
is
just an accumulation of the $450 not being paid.

Do you realize that a woman can get pregnant and not inform the father,
then, years later, file for child support and get BACK CHILD SUPPORT even if
the father were never told that he was a father? Do you think that is fair,
Maya? Do you think that it is right to deprive a child of a father in this
way?

One more question. If you think that being assigned $450 per month means
that the father can afford $450 per month--then why do you think that a
father who is assigned $250 per month should be made to pay more than that?
Doesn't it cut both ways?

"Maya Lanza" wrote in message
...

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
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?


Currently there is no such provision required. That's not my fault.

And currently, there is no provision for guidelines to be increased by
25%--that is not the NCP dads' fault either. If you are not willing to have
the rules change so that the moms have to put up their share, too, and prove
how it is spent, then why should anyone agree to force dads to pay another
25% unaccounted-for money?




====
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.


These days its a "no job until I get a degree" world.

Really? McDonald's is only hiring PhDs these days?