|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#61
November 10th 03, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Cox Strategy Targets Child Support Deadbeats
|
|
#62
November 10th 03, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cox Strategy Targets Child Support Deadbeats
You mean TJ?? Yes and I just explained that in another post.. old hat
next topic. I switched newsreaders and just posted with the defaults set. blah blah.. On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:04:24 GMT, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message news:... wrote in message ... Here is where you are wrong again BOB. "Some" states do not designate 18 as the age of emancipation. This would first of all debunk your expertise in the area of child support. Two points - States do not have the authority to write laws that over-ride federal IRS laws. And the word "emancipation" refers to a minor child no longer living under the direct supervision of a parent and applies only to pre-18 children's living situation. You have mixed the state CS laws that set the upper limit on CS paid directly to the CP with what I am saying about children becoming adults as defined under federal law and how their age impacts tax filing options. I forgot to mention one other thing . . . FFK has now switched her identity to . "None" is using the exact same cable modem Internet hook-up address as Fighting, who used the same cable modem as CJ.
|
|
#63
November 10th 03, 09:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cox Strategy Targets Child Support Deadbeats
|
|
#64
November 11th 03, 12:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cox Strategy Targets Child Support Deadbeats
Never said I was the sister, either. Heh, heh. Hell, I might be his
neighbors cat...  You are right in one thing though, they both did something wrong. Him, he married the stupid cow because he did the "right thing" (she was pregnant). She wanted someone to be her slave and kowtow to her will, answer her ever beck and call. When he wouldn't do it, she went after his wallet and all his worldly possesions. And yes, you can paste my name in neon lights all over the planet as a supporter of beat-dead Dads (and Moms)!! I'll enjoy the publicity!! Oh, yes, I do agree with the idea that owing $58k in CS is unacceptable - especially when nearly 50% of it is actually state fees, penalties and the 12.5% interest per month that they tack on!!! wrote in message ... The question should be, do you ever learn? Obviously from other posts you are the "sister" that somehow thinks its acceptable for your brother to not help pay for the children that he makes. You seem to think that everything is the X's fault, when in fact it usually is both that have done something wrong. How about you add your name to the list of deadbeat supporters, child neglectors? $58,000 for two years is totally unaccpetable. I would say from all your posts that your brother is evading child support not down on his luck. How many "jobs" has he actually had over this two year period? On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 15:18:24 -0500, "Dusty" wrote: Good grief. Don't you ever learn? I'd like to know just how much you suck from the teat of GovCo's Divorce Industry... Please tell us how much you -gain- over your regular pay check. Unless popping out kids and collecting CS from unsuspecting fathers IS your job... Oh, and it's not me that owes CS - it's my brother. And at last count, it was around $58k for 24 months of non-payment because of a lack of work. I've never seen anyone in more dire need of a bitch slap in my life then you FFK.. "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Good then you can report yourself so you can be added to their list of deadbeats...
|
|
#66
November 11th 03, 06:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cox Strategy Targets Child Support Deadbeats
I'm confused, which fruit kake are we discussing again? FFK, SFM, or
None@... Or did our favorite little insect attempt to change her spots again and become William Shatner this time? A-HA!!! I got it!! FFK/SFM/None@ is from an alternative dimension and is actually attempting to suck our brains dry!!! Hense all the stupidity from her. No one can truely be that dumb and be allowed to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time... But just in case... Get out the tin-foil hats!!! We're being invaded by the Stupid People of Quadrent X!!! "Melvin Gamble" wrote in message ... Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1 wrote: " No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.", indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't. fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that "fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids". And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it... Mel Gamble wrote: However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody knows how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different. On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of many factors missing in her education... Fighting for kids wrote: Snore... "Paul Fritz" wrote in message ... And this............... Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child support laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how could it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial parents can spend this tax-free gift Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed twice ? on anything they want: booze, drugs, new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody knows how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S. Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on the child. No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself. Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines. I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it. Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented to this very same committee in 1995). Where? What study? Why? Money is a destabilizer or put differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for increasing child well-being? Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont correlate at all. The intact family, something not terribly popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no less). And raising a child alone is not work? Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for doing it... A recent study showed that a stay at home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most" NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work. Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : ) Mel Gamble "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Matt D" wrote in message om... Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that causes poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've abandoned their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a parent has." What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that. And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver... "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the question directly have concluded otherwise."
|
|
#67
November 11th 03, 03:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cox Strategy Targets Child Support Deadbeats
Your confused, doesnt surprise me!!! On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:43:14 -0500, "Dusty" wrote: I'm confused, which fruit kake are we discussing again? FFK, SFM, or None@... Or did our favorite little insect attempt to change her spots again and become William Shatner this time? A-HA!!! I got it!! FFK/SFM/None@ is from an alternative dimension and is actually attempting to suck our brains dry!!! Hense all the stupidity from her. No one can truely be that dumb and be allowed to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time... But just in case... Get out the tin-foil hats!!! We're being invaded by the Stupid People of Quadrent X!!! "Melvin Gamble" wrote in message ... Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1 wrote: " No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.", indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't. fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that "fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids". And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it... Mel Gamble wrote: However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody knows how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different. On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of many factors missing in her education... Fighting for kids wrote: Snore... "Paul Fritz" wrote in message ... And this............... Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child support laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how could it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial parents can spend this tax-free gift Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed twice ? on anything they want: booze, drugs, new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody knows how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S. Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on the child. No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself. Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines. I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it. Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented to this very same committee in 1995). Where? What study? Why? Money is a destabilizer or put differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for increasing child well-being? Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont correlate at all. The intact family, something not terribly popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no less). And raising a child alone is not work? Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for doing it... A recent study showed that a stay at home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most" NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work. Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : ) Mel Gamble "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Matt D" wrote in message om... Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that causes poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've abandoned their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a parent has." What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that. And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver... "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the question directly have concluded otherwise."
|
|
#68
November 11th 03, 03:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cox Strategy Targets Child Support Deadbeats
Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things.
You are such an ass. On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1 wrote: " No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.", indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't. fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that "fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids". And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it... Mel Gamble wrote: However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody knows how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different. On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of many factors missing in her education... Fighting for kids wrote: Snore... "Paul Fritz" wrote in message ... And this............... Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child support laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how could it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial parents can spend this tax-free gift Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed twice ? on anything they want: booze, drugs, new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody knows how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S. Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on the child. No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself. Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines. I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it. Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented to this very same committee in 1995). Where? What study? Why? Money is a destabilizer or put differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for increasing child well-being? Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont correlate at all. The intact family, something not terribly popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no less). And raising a child alone is not work? Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for doing it... A recent study showed that a stay at home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most" NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work. Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : ) Mel Gamble "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Matt D" wrote in message om... Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that causes poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've abandoned their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a parent has." What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that. And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver... "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the question directly have concluded otherwise."
|
|
#69
November 12th 03, 06:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cox Strategy Targets Child Support Deadbeats
It's "you're" as in "you are" or "You're confused."
I believe you where attempting to say, "You're confused, it doesn't surprise me." Or you could have been attempting to say, "You have me confused, which doesn't surprise me." Or it may have been you where attempting to blather.. "I'm so confused, don't surprise me!" Or you may well have thought to say, but your fingers couldn't move to the appropriate keys because of the medication you're on.. "I'm so stupid, I can't form coherent sentences much less type them in an intelligible manner for others to read." Which one is it? And while you're at it - pick a friggin' name and stick to it!!!! "Fighting For Kids" wrote in message ... Your confused, doesnt surprise me!!! On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:43:14 -0500, "Dusty" wrote: [snip]
|
|
#70
November 12th 03, 09:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cox Strategy Targets Child Support Deadbeats
So why did you reply to my post, dumb****?
Fighting For Kids wrote: Blah blah.. i was posting to the person who said some other things. You are such an ass. For calling you on your stupidity? Soooooo sorry : ) But then, one doesn't need to be very bright to spot it.... Mel Gamble On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:19:49 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: Read the post again fruitkake2...particularly the part where fruitkake1 wrote: " No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself.", indicating that the person posting "this guy"s research posted the researchers estimate as fact, which he didn't. fruitkake1 responded to a post which didn't even attempt to make the point to which fruitkake1 thought he was responding - proving that "fruitkake" is more fitting than anything denoting "for kids". And now comes fruitkake2 who seems to think *I* posted the original article. Apparently fruitkake2 is jealous of the frutkake rating of fruitkake1 and is attempting to show himself more deserving of it... Mel Gamble wrote: However in the sentence before that you posted "Nobody knows how much of the money ever reaches the child." This professor is just one person, who yes, estimates his own figures. Im sure that there are other professors that would estimate something different. On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:47:25 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: Flying Fruit Kake doesn't know the meaning of "estimate"...just one of many factors missing in her education... Fighting for kids wrote: Snore... "Paul Fritz" wrote in message ... And this............... Aside from the fact that parents are forced into exile by our child support laws, no study has ever shown child support to help children. And how could it, since no accountability is required of custodial parents. Custodial parents can spend this tax-free gift Tax Free how do you figure? Its already taxed, do you propose it be taxed twice ? on anything they want: booze, drugs, new clothes, a new car, vacations - maybe even on the children. Nobody knows how much of the money ever reaches the child. UCLA Professor William S. Comanor estimates that only $1 in $5 of child support actually is spent on the child. No one knows but this guy does? Contridicting yourself. Why not adopt the same documentation rules for custodial parents that the IRS requires for tax deductions? Ditto for penalties and fines. I agree. I think that there should be some kind of accountability on each parents part. I also think that those who do not pay support on time and fall behind so much should NOT be allowed to get away with it. Studies do show that states highest in child support and welfare payments rank lowest in child well-being (in fact, this information was presented to this very same committee in 1995). Where? What study? Why? Money is a destabilizer or put differently, a single-parent household enabler. What was responsible for increasing child well-being? Usually these studies concentrate on what the state itself spends on things such as education, medical coverage, ect not on what impact child support has on the children. You yourself said how could any study dictate such things if they dont have any accountability where the money is spent and no one really knows how much is actually spent on the child. The two dont correlate at all. The intact family, something not terribly popular with society's "me, me, me" attitude. Divorces increase during economic boom times and decrease during tough times. Child support, like welfare, creates an individual economic boom (without requiring work, no less). And raising a child alone is not work? Sure it is, but GOOD parents don't ask somebody else to pay them for doing it... A recent study showed that a stay at home parent has as much stress and responsiblity as someone who works TWO full time jobs. So a single parent who has NO support from the NCP has to do this PLUS work a job to support their family (as statistics show "most" NCP's dont pay support on a regular basis nor do they pay the full amounts ordered). Get off the "CP's" dont work. Fruit Kake, of course, doesn't require that anyone make such an assertion before making the "get off" it statement...what a loser : ) Mel Gamble "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Matt D" wrote in message om... Failure to pay child support is "the only crime in this country that causes poverty," Jensen said. "These parents are lawbreakers. They've abandoned their children and have failed to meet the most basic obligation a parent has." What about the crime of have having a child and keeping a child (as opposed to adoption) that you are not able to support in the first place. I don't see anyone being prosecuted for that. And then there's this from Professor Sanford Braver... "In fact, no evidence exits that large numbers of father voluntarily abandon their children. No government or academic study has ever demonstrated such an epidemic, and those studies that have addressed the question directly have concluded otherwise."
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | January 16th 04 09:15 AM |
| Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
| Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |
| GM bonuses cut because of child support | Angel | Child Support | 120 | October 29th 03 02:52 AM |
Linear Mode
