A Novel Idea for Custodial Moms

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

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 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!

G wrote:

"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!

You're far too soft on these deadbeat deserter dad scum. I say increase
child support obligations by 250%. And give every little girl a pony, too.

- Ron ^*^

"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...
======
(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.
====
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?
====

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.
====
====

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

"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.

"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?


====
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?


====

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 are saying that the boy's father pays $250 per month? And you
provide your 50%, right?

Because if dad is paying $500, and you are paying your $500, that wouldbe
$1000 per month just for the child's needs. That doesn't cover his needs?

"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