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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
ghostwriter wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. Actually I think that I have been taken well out of context, the fathers(or mothers) that dodge support and push their children into poverty are *******s. The fathers(or mothers) that abuse their wifes(husbands) are *******s. That is only a small percentage of the total, a very small percentage. The fact that the system has to be harsh in order to get as many of those *******s as possible is not because good fathers should be pentalized, its that not enough resources exist to weed the good fathers from the bad and that given the choice between allowing the small percentage of bad fathers to walk away and being overly harsh on the good fathers, I freely and willing choice the harsh system. I will have to see what studies have been done, my thinking comes out of years of working with these children, but all of the percentages I can think of were given to me by social workers (and I am aware they are not the most unbiased of sources). And like I said the plural of anectdote is not evidence so despite the many occasions were it was blindly obvious that poverty was a major contruting factor to the abuse of a paticular child, I will see if I can locate outside verification. Since you have apparently already done a review of the available data maybe you can give an actual site. If you possess the information please share. I dont disagree with the people that have major issues with paying for a ex that wont work, nor do I think that payments should drive someone into bankrupcy. I do however want the assumtions to be harsh and the burden of proof to stay with the NCP. I suppose that I should mention that I couldnt care less if the custodian parent is the mother or father, but honestly placements with fathers are less of an issue since finding paying work is easier for a healthly man(at any level of education) than it is for a woman at the lowest levels of education. By the way socialism would have the government paying for everything these children need and then taxing the entire population to pay for it, that is specifically what I am arguing against. A free market economy is based on the concept that the movement of money creates wealth. But, I dont mind paying for a welfare state system, it keeps my children from being mugged by a desperate orphan. Ghostwriter If you think the system is justified by a few misfortunate orphans, that's about like Domino's using an eighteen wheeler to deliver pizza's. You're not playing with a full deck are you? |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"P Fritz" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message ps.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message glegroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. Actually I think that I have been taken well out of context, the fathers(or mothers) that dodge support and push their children into poverty are *******s. The fathers(or mothers) that abuse their wifes(husbands) are *******s. That is only a small percentage of the total, a very small percentage. The fact that the system has to be harsh in order to get as many of those *******s as possible is not because good fathers should be pentalized, its that not enough resources exist to weed the good fathers from the bad and that given the choice between allowing the small percentage of bad fathers to walk away and being overly harsh on the good fathers, I freely and willing choice the harsh system. I will have to see what studies have been done, my thinking comes out of years of working with these children, but all of the percentages I can think of were given to me by social workers (and I am aware they are not the most unbiased of sources). And like I said the plural of anectdote is not evidence so despite the many occasions were it was blindly obvious that poverty was a major contruting factor to the abuse of a paticular child, I will see if I can locate outside verification. Since you have apparently already done a review of the available data maybe you can give an actual site. If you possess the information please share. See Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre...cid/index.html There is lots of data in this report but it doesn't get tied together into the kinds of conclusions being expressed by you as having come from social workers. There are sections on "Family Structure" and "Family Income" but the economic data is characterized as being questionable because of so many cases with missing data on income factors. What we do know is the very low income brackets where abuse and neglect occurs the most are also public money (welfare) cases. In those cases CS does not go to the family. Instead, the family receives the public money benefits and the CS paid is paid to the government to reimburse the public money outlay. Whether CS is paid, or not paid, the family gets the same amount of welfare benefits. A way to check this is to look at the annual Census report on CS. The average CS award for a below poverty parent is $2328 or $194 per month. Those CS awards would have to go up 8 to 10 fold to cover average public money benefits. The payment in full of CS at $194 per month is not going to change the family's income. The only time CS helps a family in poverty is when the CS award exceeds the public money benefits received and the amount over the "current" benefits gets passed through to the family. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/child...ldsupport.html See table 4. A very few foster parents abuse the kids, The fact that the system needs to be harsh in order to get as many of those *******s as possible is not because good foster parenmts should be penalized, its that not enough resources exist to weed the good foster parents from the bad and that given the choice between allowing the small percentage of bad foster parents to abuse the kids and being overly harsh on the good good foster parents, I freely and willing choice the harsh system. I like it. Substitute "single-parent mothers" for "foster parents" and you have another way of solving a lot more problems. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"DB" wrote in message et... "Moon Shyne" wrote in Woman now have an equal chance to support their children, what's the problem? And all parents have an equal responsibility to support their children. I'm doing my part, and I'll let "the system" make sure that their father does his part, too. Yes, as long as his part is to pay more money than you actually need, I guess that's OK with you. Funny, my father didn't need any system to support 3 kids on one income, what's your problem? In a word.............. "GREED"! |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message et... "Moon Shyne" wrote in Because not *all* fathers voluntarily support their children. Woman now have an equal chance to support their children, what's the problem? And all parents have an equal responsibility to support their children. I'm doing my part, and I'll let "the system" make sure that their father does his part, too. IMPOSSIBLE! No system can force ANYONE to support their children........................... next. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Considering what you wrote about not caring about the fathers that are hurt by the system, my wish for you is that you find yourself (or someone you love) in a situation where you have done nothing wrong, but you are being egregiously harmed because other people have done something wrong. When you have actually experienced that which you are so casually dismissing as being worth the price, then, perhaps, you can come back and share. Hmmm, you mean like the CP mothers who are castigated, accused of being greedy, lazy, and all manner of things, because SOME CP mothers are that way? Those kind of generalizations? You haven't seen me do that, Moon. I think both sides of the issue have victims. It is not a good system. Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that YOU were guilty of it - but you have to admit, CP's come here at their own peril - and all too many posters here insist that all CP's are terrible people who are ruining their children - and I really dislike broad generalizations of any kind. While it may not be a good system, having gone through a number of years without the system (it's pretty impossible to do a wage assignment on someone who's self-employed), this is far better. Because? Because not *all* fathers voluntarily support their children. By far the exception rather than the rule. A broad application of your "system" indeed. What was it you were saying about generalizations? |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? Nah, he doesn't care if guys like me pay, you know the type, the ones who never had arrears and never missed any payments. He wants us to worship him like a deity. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Gini" wrote in message news:xla6h.1133$8u1.123@trndny04... "DB" wrote "Moon Shyne" wrote in Woman now have an equal chance to support their children, what's the problem? And all parents have an equal responsibility to support their children. I'm doing my part, and I'll let "the system" make sure that their father does his part, too. Yes, as long as his part is to pay more money than you actually need, I guess that's OK with you. Funny, my father didn't need any system to support 3 kids on one income, what's your problem? == It's called "entitlement," (control) The system has convinced women that they are entitled to a share of the man's income and characterizes them as fools if they don't seek/accept it. This is most striking in the comment we hear frequently he I don't care how much he pays--He's GOING to pay SOMETHING! They have lost all motivation to be financially independent of the father and can't understand the strength and dignity of mothers who refuse to play the game--refuse support and share physical custody. They just don't get it, and it is such a worthwhile manner of existence. Sad. Even tragic. Thanks for clarifying that, I guess some people like Money Shyte specialize in hand outs and charity to survive. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"DB" wrote in message et... "Moon Shyne" wrote in Woman now have an equal chance to support their children, what's the problem? And all parents have an equal responsibility to support their children. I'm doing my part, and I'll let "the system" make sure that their father does his part, too. Yes, as long as his part is to pay more money than you actually need, I guess that's OK with you. Since you have no idea how much money he pays, nor how much is needed, your statement above has no basis in reality. Funny, my father didn't need any system to support 3 kids on one income, what's your problem? Didn't say I had a problem. To me, we have the solution. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning choice in the long run. Ghostwriter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 01:49 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 9th 03 12:53 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 05:27 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 11:12 PM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |