deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip


There is every reason to think that, if these principles were
followed,
there would be a sharp drop in the number of single-parent
families,
with
enormous benefits for children and for society at large.

I absolutely agree with you, Kenneth. Fair and balanced--not
skewed
in
either direction!

And the only way to accomplish that is to ELIMINATE "child support"!

Not necessarily.

Fine. Keep your "child support" system, and things will NEVER change.

The question is not whether or not things need to change, Chris. It's
what
you want them to change into.

Read four lines above, and there you will have your answer.

I would actually like you to answer the question, Chris. How does removing
your clothing and having sex with a woman compare to having reared a child,
who grew up and reared you? How can your grandmother be "responsible" for
providing the sperm in the same way that you are?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip


There is every reason to think that, if these principles were
followed,
there would be a sharp drop in the number of single-parent
families,
with
enormous benefits for children and for society at large.

I absolutely agree with you, Kenneth. Fair and balanced--not
skewed
in
either direction!

And the only way to accomplish that is to ELIMINATE "child
support"!

Not necessarily.

Fine. Keep your "child support" system, and things will NEVER change.

The question is not whether or not things need to change, Chris. It's
what
you want them to change into.

Read four lines above, and there you will have your answer.

I would actually like you to answer the question, Chris. How does
removing your clothing and having sex with a woman compare to having
reared a child, who grew up and reared you? How can your grandmother be
"responsible" for providing the sperm in the same way that you are?

Sorry, answered the wrong question here--in a hurry. I don't want to go
back and guess what you would do by trying to decide which lines to read,
Chris. I want you, right here, to ANSWER the question. If child support is
completely done away with, how would you deal with the very small percentage
of parents who absolutely refuse to support their children? How would you
make sure that the children were adequately cared for? What would you put
in place of the child support system?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

I absolutely agree with you on this point. It was absolutely
ridiculous
to force everyone into the system, when the vast majority would have
been
able to work things out themselves. The incentives should be
removed,
50/50 joint custody should be the default, and child support, when
needed, should cover basic needs--NOT lifestyle! But there still
needs
to be a system in place for the 3% who refuse to acknowledge any
responsibility at all.

Given that the majority of the 3% are down and out, the government
has
means to garnish assets from people with real income, but again if
the
system were fair, there would be little motive to avoid helping your
own
children.

The CS system is not the solution, it's the problem!

As it stands now, you are right. We do need to be able to hole people
responsible. Just not the way it is being done now.

It is PRECISELY this kind of thinking that got us here in the first
place.
Of course "child support" was good intended when it first started. But
like
most government programs, it eventually turned to poison. And guess
what?
If
you revamp it back to it's original state, it's only a matter of time
before
it gets right back to where it is now. Strange thing, repeated history.

And, instead of CS, you would..........??

.... have NO "child support". How many more times do I have to say it?

"teachrmama" wrote in

Your family was an easy target for them, a responsible working man with
fixed assets is easy prey!
Why hunt for slim pickings when you can have a big fat cash cow for the
taking?

That's what makes it so disgusting!! Then they jump up and down, beating
their chests with pride, claiming to have collected from another
"deadbeat," when there was never even a possibility that he wouldn't pay!!

In the sales industry, there are the real salesmen who earn their
commission, and then there are the order takers who sit around waiting for
a customer to call in and place an order. The order takers claim the honour
of making a great sale and then want a heavy commission for all their phoney
leg work.

Same with case workerswho are nothing more than order takers , they go after
the easy targets first to ensure their monthly quota and the boss only cares
about the numbers coming in so they can claim they collect so many millions
for the children.

The ignorant villagers all nod their heads inapproval and say this is a
wonderful thing for the children while in the back of the village there are
kids who are still waiting for real help.

"teachrmama" wrote in

What would you put in place of the child support system?

A parent indepedance program!

On Nov 2, 6:55 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message

...







"Chris" wrote in message
...

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip

There is every reason to think that, if these principles were
followed,
there would be a sharp drop in the number of single-parent
families,
with
enormous benefits for children and for society at large.

I absolutely agree with you, Kenneth. Fair and balanced--not
skewed
in
either direction!

And the only way to accomplish that is to ELIMINATE "child
support"!

Not necessarily.

Fine. Keep your "child support" system, and things will NEVER change.

The question is not whether or not things need to change, Chris. It's
what
you want them to change into.

Read four lines above, and there you will have your answer.

I would actually like you to answer the question, Chris. How does
removing your clothing and having sex with a woman compare to having
reared a child, who grew up and reared you? How can your grandmother be
"responsible" for providing the sperm in the same way that you are?

Sorry, answered the wrong question here--in a hurry. I don't want to go
back and guess what you would do by trying to decide which lines to read,
Chris. I want you, right here, to ANSWER the question. If child support is
completely done away with, how would you deal with the very small percentage
of parents who absolutely refuse to support their children? How would you
make sure that the children were adequately cared for? What would you put
in place of the child support system?



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How do u mess with semantics and or connotations of that question
tee, hee I am curious to see Chris' answer to this...C'mon,Chris,
make it a good one.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Chris wrote:

I don't understand how the needs and wants of the parents superscede
those
of
the childs....

Parents are real living human beings too, all are Equal!
Lets not forget who is in charge, the parents of the child!!!!!

Correction: It's the mother. Well, at least that's what their government
people say.

My ex-wife is getting $507 every two weeks for child support of my two
children. If she was using the money for the kids, I'd be fine with it.
But she is going back to a state university to get her degree, saving up
for a wedding to her new boy friend, and all the while not getting my kids
the hair cuts they keep asking her for! Makes me wonder who my checks
really are supporting...

"The Master" wrote in message
r.org...
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Chris wrote:

I don't understand how the needs and wants of the parents superscede
those
of
the childs....

Parents are real living human beings too, all are Equal!
Lets not forget who is in charge, the parents of the child!!!!!

Correction: It's the mother. Well, at least that's what their government
people say.

My ex-wife is getting $507 every two weeks for child support of my two
children. If she was using the money for the kids, I'd be fine with it.
But she is going back to a state university to get her degree, saving up
for a wedding to her new boy friend, and all the while not getting my kids
the hair cuts they keep asking her for! Makes me wonder who my checks
really are supporting...
==
Doesn't matter to the government. Its concern is getting the money to the
custodial parent.
As long as the kids aren't cold or starving, she's free to spend it on
anything she wishes. NCPs
are the only class of parents held to a higher standard of support.
The government is aware that it only needs to present the *illusion* that
it's "in the best interest
of the child" -- Kinda like the *illusion* of democracy is the only
requirement for keeping the citizens
loyal to the nation.

"Chris" wrote in message
news


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

I absolutely agree with you on this point. It was absolutely
ridiculous
to force everyone into the system, when the vast majority would
have
been
able to work things out themselves. The incentives should be
removed,
50/50 joint custody should be the default, and child support, when
needed, should cover basic needs--NOT lifestyle! But there still
needs
to be a system in place for the 3% who refuse to acknowledge any
responsibility at all.

Given that the majority of the 3% are down and out, the government
has
means to garnish assets from people with real income, but again if
the
system were fair, there would be little motive to avoid helping your
own
children.

The CS system is not the solution, it's the problem!

As it stands now, you are right. We do need to be able to hole people
responsible. Just not the way it is being done now.

It is PRECISELY this kind of thinking that got us here in the first
place.
Of course "child support" was good intended when it first started. But
like
most government programs, it eventually turned to poison. And guess
what?
If
you revamp it back to it's original state, it's only a matter of time
before
it gets right back to where it is now. Strange thing, repeated history.

And, instead of CS, you would..........??

... have NO "child support". How many more times do I have to say it?

You are really far too rabid in your views, Chris. The system was not
always as it is not. It started out serving a useful purpose.

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

What would you put in place of the child support system?

A parent indepedance program!

And that is waht is needed for the vast majority of parents--they are
perfectly capable of handling their own affairs and they take their
responsibilities seriously. What about the true deadbeats--the ones who
father a dozen children by an equal number of women, and leave them all in
poverty. Would you do nothing about that? Have no standard whatsoever?