Virginia: Child Support Undefined
RogerFGay
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay091602.htm
The Virginia Child Support Review Panel is tasked with assuring that
the use of the state's child support guideline results in appropriate
awards. One might think this job impossible if the term "child
support" is not defined. That is exactly what panel member Murray
Steinberg thought. Mr. Steinberg has been trying since early June to
have the panel agree on a definition of "child support."
On July 1st, without discussion, the panel voted 8-1 to "keep the
current definition" — meaning that the panel continue its review
without defining the all important term. The motion to hold the vote
was given by state Senator Frederick Quayle (R-District 13). Senator
Quayle's two offices were contacted twice by email over a two week
period asking for comment. A staff member responded that he was not
available.
complete article
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay091602.htm
Bob
RogerFGay wrote:
> Virginia Panel Votes to Leave 'Child Support' Undefined
> http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay091602.htm
>
> The Virginia Child Support Review Panel is tasked with assuring that
> the use of the state's child support guideline results in appropriate
> awards. One might think this job impossible if the term "child
> support" is not defined. That is exactly what panel member Murray
> Steinberg thought. Mr. Steinberg has been trying since early June to
> have the panel agree on a definition of "child support."
I'll give twenty to one odds that their new definition does not include
feeding, clothing, or housing a child.
Bob
>
> On July 1st, without discussion, the panel voted 8-1 to "keep the
> current definition" -- meaning that the panel continue its review
RogerFGay
> RogerFGay wrote:
>
> > Virginia Panel Votes to Leave 'Child Support' Undefined
> > http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay091602.htm
> >
> > The Virginia Child Support Review Panel is tasked with assuring that
> > the use of the state's child support guideline results in appropriate
> > awards. One might think this job impossible if the term "child
> > support" is not defined. That is exactly what panel member Murray
> > Steinberg thought. Mr. Steinberg has been trying since early June to
> > have the panel agree on a definition of "child support."
>
>
> I'll give twenty to one odds that their new definition does not include
> feeding, clothing, or housing a child.
>
> Bob
>
Their new definition is the same as the old one; i.e. there is no
definition. That allows them to continue to arbitrarily manipulate the
amount of "child support" ordered doing anything they want to with the
formula.
Martin Davies
Just out of interest, does the American legal system let them get away
with that?
Other people have told me that the American system (including
constitution) is superior to other countries - yet you end up with
some "undefined" definition.
Can the people of that state not challenge that decision?
The British system of child support is crap - but over time it gets
defined more and more (case law from child support commissioners does
the main bit).
Sometimes resulting in a definition thats completely different from
what was origionally envisaged.
Martin <><
Bob
Martin Davies wrote:
> roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message news:<4b6433c3.02091...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Bob <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3D85F63...@hotmail.com>...
>>
>>>RogerFGay wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Virginia Panel Votes to Leave 'Child Support' Undefined
>>>>http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay091602.htm
>>>>
>>>>The Virginia Child Support Review Panel is tasked with assuring that
>>>>the use of the state's child support guideline results in appropriate
>>>>awards. One might think this job impossible if the term "child
>>>>support" is not defined. That is exactly what panel member Murray
>>>>Steinberg thought. Mr. Steinberg has been trying since early June to
>>>>have the panel agree on a definition of "child support."
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'll give twenty to one odds that their new definition does not include
>>>feeding, clothing, or housing a child.
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>>
>>Their new definition is the same as the old one; i.e. there is no
>>definition. That allows them to continue to arbitrarily manipulate the
>>amount of "child support" ordered doing anything they want to with the
>>formula.
>>
>
>
> Just out of interest, does the American legal system let them get away
> with that?
Yes, the American Illegal system is based on that.
> Other people have told me that the American system (including
> constitution) is superior to other countries - yet you end up with
> some "undefined" definition.
Its the law. Its what they do. Its the old champion system in a black
robe. My champion can best your champion, only men's champions need not
apply
> Can the people of that state not challenge that decision?
No. The people have no recourse.
> The British system of child support is crap - but over time it gets
> defined more and more (case law from child support commissioners does
> the main bit).
The system is wrong from the start. You can't make wrong into right by
doing it more effectively.
> Sometimes resulting in a definition thats completely different from
> what was origionally envisaged.
> Martin <><
It was originally envisioned as a system to take men's money and give it
to women. It meets the vision very well. That's why they won't make
changes. Its doing exactly what its supposed to do, enslave men to pay
women. Why is that hard to see?
Bob
Barry Pearson
news:a7643214.02091...@posting.google.com...
Given the number of newsgroups and countries that this article is directed at,
perhaps introductions are in order. Some people here may not understand your
position.
You and I are among the most knowledgeable people concerning the UK's child
support system currently posting to Usenet. Neither of us has children, so we
are devoting our time to this because we believe that the UK's system has
serious flaws. Neither of us is trying to sort out our own position. I'm
childfree and intend to stay that way, while each time I have met you I have
also met your wife, so I guess child support is not a personal issue with you!
In effect, we are doing this for charity - to make things better for others, not
ourselves.
For each of us, our personal position gives us a certain amount of objectivity
and independence. We don't always agree with one-another, but both of us can see
flaws in the polarised positions of those with personal issues and particular
ideologies, because we have views of the overall situations of the nearly 4
million men, women, and children impacted by the UK's child support system. We
both know that few if any of the generalisations posted to newsgroups are
sufficiently true to form the single basis of law. I think we both agree with
the concept of child support, but not with the current or reformed UK child
support system.
> roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message
news:<4b6433c3.02091...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> > Their new definition is the same as the old one; i.e. there is no
> > definition. That allows them to continue to arbitrarily
> > manipulate the amount of "child support" ordered doing
> > anything they want to with the formula.
>
> Just out of interest, does the American legal system let them get
> away with that?
> Other people have told me that the American system (including
> constitution) is superior to other countries - yet you end up with
> some "undefined" definition.
I have previous tended to envy the US Constitution. I'm having second thoughts.
Let's be clear. The UK has a constitution. It is all written down. But there
isn't a document saying what, of everything that has been written down, is the
constitution! So what the constitution is is a matter of interpretation and
convention. Take your pick.
The UK has no Bill of Rights. The US does - a set of amendments (including the
first 10) to the Constitution. (Is that right?) Only the UK (and Israel I think)
of all developed nations are in this state. The Human Rights Act 1998 isn't a
Bill of Rights, because it is simply a law subject to the primacy of Parliament,
and not entrenched. But it is a step in the right direction.
The result tends to be that the UK government encroaches on "rights" for reasons
of "state security". But not for child support. Overriding HRA 1998 is a serious
matter, not worth doing "just" for matters of internal social policy. I monitor
the database of the European Convention on Human Rights, and on the whole the
UK's child support policy is consistent with it. It is more likely that a
contravention would involve failure to provide support for children than the
other way round.
> Can the people of that state not challenge that decision?
I think Smith versus Odum (to do with paternity fraud) was intended to, but the
Supreme Court rejected it. Guess what - Smith versus Odum would have caused the
US child support system to recognise biological paternity, and even refund prior
payments if biological paternity was disproved later.
Exactly as the UK has been since April 1993! THAT is what a centralised
administration like the UK can do!
> The British system of child support is crap - but over time it gets
> defined more and more (case law from child support
> commissioners does the main bit).
The UK system is crap. The United States system is CRAP!
The cap on the UK's current system for one child is less than £160 per week,
perhaps less than about $260 per week. The Kerkorian case has an award of about
$73,800 per week!
Anyone criticising the UK's way of going about things (we tend to rely upon our
well developed civil service rather than going to court at the drop of a hat)
should contemplate the above numbers. We elected the people who set that amount
of $260, and have since elected others. We don't elect our judges (perhaps the
United States does), so judges shouldn't steer social policy by determining
winners and losers in matters such as this.
There has been criticism here that central administrative agencies are an
influence of communist systems. Utter poppycock! The UK (well, Great Britain at
least) had a well developed civil service before there were communist states -
it is just another way of implementing policy. Perhaps it is "in competition
with" litigation - France has an even better developed civil service, and fewer
lawyers per head than the UK. It is a mistake to position these approaches on a
left-to-right scale.
> Sometimes resulting in a definition thats completely different
> from what was origionally envisaged.
The UK has scope for correcting serious legislative errors, although I'm not as
convinced as you that the result is completely different from what was
originally envisaged. The corrections tend to apply to ambiguities, not to
unambiguous law.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/faq/
Bob
Barry Pearson wrote:
> For each of us, our personal position gives us a certain amount of objectivity
> and independence. We don't always agree with one-another, but both of us can see
> flaws in the polarised positions of those with personal issues and particular
> ideologies, because we have views of the overall situations of the nearly 4
> million men, women, and children impacted by the UK's child support system. We
> both know that few if any of the generalisations posted to newsgroups are
> sufficiently true to form the single basis of law.
I don't think we know that. C$ systems in whatever country serve the
same purpose. They serve to take men's money and pay whom who break up
families. That purpose is sufficiently true to say that the system is
wrong and ought to be dismantled immediately. It is also sufficiently
true to say that anyone who works for such a system spends his or her
days hurting children.
> I think we both agree with
> the concept of child support, but not with the current or reformed UK child
> support system.
You can't do WRONG by doing WRONG more effectively. The system is WRONG
in its very conception and needs to be destroyed.
Bob
Martin Davies
Will you just destroy it and replace it with nothing? Or will you
replace it with something, if so then what?
I feel there needs to be some system for when parents cannot or will
not agree.
Martin <><
> Bob
Phil#3
"Martin Davies" <martin...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7643214.02091...@posting.google.com...
Would doing "nothing" harm more, less or about equal to the numbers of
children and families as the system now in place is harming?
If, as is suspected, fewer would be harmed by allowing all parents to be the
parents they choose, doing nothing would be preferable.
If more would be harmed, then take only the action needed for each separate
and specific case instead of driving square pegs into round holes.
By disallowing the incentives of divorce, many divorces would never occur to
begin with. Removing the punitive measures of divorce would keep more
parents involved and enabled to care directly for their children; both of
which would serve not only children but the parents as well.
From where I stand, it seems doing nothing would be preferable to the
current disaster.
--
Moral character should not be measured so much by how well we act, but more
from why we act well.
Phil #3
RogerFGay
>
>
> OK, the system is wrong.
> Will you just destroy it and replace it with nothing? Or will you
> replace it with something, if so then what?
>
> I feel there needs to be some system for when parents cannot or will
> not agree.
>
> Martin <><
It depends on what you mean by "the system." What most people are
complaining about is "the system" created by the federal government.
Its history only goes back to 1975. We can certainly just eliminate
all the federal laws on child support and remove the federal
government from the process entirely. That's what I would recommend.
Doing that would return us to "the system" that developed over a
period of 200 years in the shadow of the Constitution. It wasn't
broken. They made a huge mistake trying to fix it.
Bob
Martin Davies wrote:
The age old system that worked for many millennia before feminism is
still fine. Each parent is RESPONSIBLE for the children. If the mother
takes the children or the father gives them to her SHE is RESPONSIBLE
for the children. If she gives them to the father or the father takes
them then HE is RESPONSIBLE for the children. It did and it will
encourage parents to work together rather than encouraging them to fight
over custody and promote separation of families .
If both parents leave the children to starve in the streets the
government already has foster care programs. In that case BOTH are
guilty of child abuse.
Destroy the C$ feminst program that steals men's money and pays women to
destroy families. Its just WRONG.
Bob
Bob
Phil#3 wrote:
DUH! Doing nothing harms fewer than harming families and children.
> If, as is suspected, fewer would be harmed by allowing all parents to be the
> parents they choose, doing nothing would be preferable.
Greatly preferable.
> If more would be harmed, then take only the action needed for each separate
> and specific case instead of driving square pegs into round holes.
Far fewer would be harmed by eliminating payments to people who divorce,
paying people to divorce.
> By disallowing the incentives of divorce, many divorces would never occur to
> begin with. Removing the punitive measures of divorce would keep more
> parents involved and enabled to care directly for their children; both of
> which would serve not only children but the parents as well.
>
> From where I stand, it seems doing nothing would be preferable to the
> current disaster.
Much better than the current disaster of a failed feminist social
experiment.
Bob
Bob
RogerFGay wrote:
Exactly. Most people now think that the current C$ system is "the way
its always been" when nothing could be farther from the truth. In facts
its a radical new feminist experiment in social planning designed
specifically to encourage women to leave their families, take the
children and still force men to pay them. Its a very new experiment and
a total FAILURE. It has hurt millions of children. It needs to be
destroyed, and the sooner its destroyed the more children will be saved.
Bob
RogerFGay
>
>
> Exactly. Most people now think that the current C$ system is "the way
> its always been" when nothing could be farther from the truth. In facts
> its a radical new feminist experiment in social planning designed
> specifically to encourage women to leave their families, take the
> children and still force men to pay them. Its a very new experiment and
> a total FAILURE. It has hurt millions of children. It needs to be
> destroyed, and the sooner its destroyed the more children will be saved.
>
> Bob
They said they were just enforcing the law, and claimed they had to
increase enforcement efforts because child support law was not being
enforced. Both claims were lies.
Stan Mould
such as this?
Stan
John Jones
"Stan Mould" <stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m3Mj9.6009$sn6.57...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Because someone thinks that the message pertains to both groups,
or because someone is trying to start yet another flame war.
Hope that helps!
RogerFGay
> such as this?
>
> Stan
Child support reforms were born of international treaties. The
corruption and problems they caused in the US and UK are one in the
same.
Stan Mould
"RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02092...@posting.google.com...
I agree, but it seems to me to be more a problem of cross-posting and people
replying without changing the NG's to those relevant. (Deliberately left
unchanged to get the point across)
Stan
Tracy
Stan, since I don't know which UK group you are corresponding from I left
them in. I wish the cross-posting would stop, because less than 10% of
the posts showing up in alt.child-support are actually being responded to
by people who regularly correspond in this group. Well over 90% of the
posts showing up are cross-posted. I know who starts some of them, and I
wish he would see that he isn't doing a service to any of these groups by
cross-posting.
Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
Afer Ventus... "The moment experienced when everything in life suddenly
makes sense - when everything fits into place and we know why - is a rare
moment, but it does happen." - Roma Ryan
*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
Stan Mould
"Tracy" <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.44.0209242235230.1688-100000@mom...
Thanks for that, Tracy.
I was posting from uk.people.fathers. the other posts were cross posted all
over the place, such as -
alt.child-support,
alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,
soc.men,
uk.gov.agency.csa,
uk.people.fathers
It's absolutely pointless because the latter two are in the UK and the
others in the US. Ok, there might be vague similarities, but not in the
detail.
It just wastes everyone's time and bandwidth cross-posting such
irrelevancies.
Stan
RogerFGay
>
> them in. I wish the cross-posting would stop, because less than 10% of
> the posts showing up in alt.child-support are actually being responded to
> by people who regularly correspond in this group. Well over 90% of the
> posts showing up are cross-posted. I know who starts some of them, and I
> wish he would see that he isn't doing a service to any of these groups by
> cross-posting.
>
> Tracy
>
We've covered this ground several times before. The child support
issue is an international issue. Child support reforms in a long list
of countries resulted from international treaties and conventions.
We've had a lot of cross talk between the English and Americans in our
postings, and it's a pity that other countries have not developed
corresponding discussion groups so that we can so easily include them.
Barry Pearson
> Tracy <ni...@merlins.place> wrote in message
news:<Pine.WNT.4.44.0209242235230.1688-100000@mom>...
> >
> > Stan, since I don't know which UK group you are corresponding
> > from I left them in. I wish the cross-posting would stop, because
> > less than 10% of the posts showing up in alt.child-support are
> > actually being responded to by people who regularly correspond
> > in this group. Well over 90% of the posts showing up are cross-posted.
> > I know who starts some of them, and I wish he would see that he isn't
> > doing a service to any of these groups by cross-posting.
>
> issue is an international issue. Child support reforms in a long list
> of countries resulted from international treaties and conventions.
> We've had a lot of cross talk between the English and Americans in our
> postings, and it's a pity that other countries have not developed
> corresponding discussion groups so that we can so easily include them.
I've trimmed some of the newsgroups, but left uk.people.fathers in to see if
Stan wants to comment.
The first point is that there are 2 UK newsgroups in the list, each with its own
scope. Roughly, one is about the UK's child support system, the other is about
UK-fathers' rights or their lack. Some articles are relevant to both, but most
are not. People concerned with father's rights who are ALSO interested in child
support will subscribe to both, so articles specifically about one topic or the
other need not be cross-posted to both.
The second point is that it is probably a "stretch" to say that issues with
definitions in one of the United States counts as an "international issue". I
would have seen it anyway because I subscribe to alt.child-support, but
uk.gov.agency.csa is deliberately scoped to the UK. If there really is "the
child support issue", I doubt if it is this one.
Charters, for interest. (They are a feature of later uk.* groups).
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.people.fathers.html
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.gov.agency.csa.html
RogerFGay
>
> The second point is that it is probably a "stretch" to say that issues with
> definitions in one of the United States counts as an "international issue". I
> would have seen it anyway because I subscribe to alt.child-support, but
> uk.gov.agency.csa is deliberately scoped to the UK. If there really is "the
> child support issue", I doubt if it is this one.
>
>
The child support system in the US and UK are based on the same
treaties and international conventions. They share the same basic law.
We're all discussing the effects of exactly the same international
conspiracy to eliminate basic rights and establish the policies of an
international dictatorship.
We all know there are people on both sides of the issue. Barry, you've
spent a lot of time trying to cover up the fact that the western rule
of law has been abolished in favor of arbitrarily control policies
developed through socialist dictatorships. You'd like to limit
comments so that you can continue to pretend that the child support
system in England is a natural evolution based on democratic
principles and procedures.
Ain't gonna happen.
Stan Mould
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tdGm9.788$kU4.101359@newsfep2-gui...
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I am not in the slightest
interested in reading a load of stuff from the States when I subscribe to a
UK hierarchy newsgroup.
If I want to get the US view, then I'll subscribe to alt.US.fathers.child
support or whatever it is.
I think the people in all these US groups are the ones that seem to be
spamming the UK groups in the belief that they are spreading their message.
They are not. They are irritating and it is pointless when we have our own
groups.
No-one denies the similarities in the concept, but the operational
differences are what counts.
Stan
Stan Mould
You should take your political ideas to the appropriate NGs.
I think they are a load of shite.
Stan
Barry Pearson
news:<tdGm9.788$kU4.101359@newsfep2-gui>...
> >
> > The second point is that it is probably a "stretch" to say that
> > issues with definitions in one of the United States counts as
> > an "international issue". I would have seen it anyway because
> > I subscribe to alt.child-support, but uk.gov.agency.csa is
> > deliberately scoped to the UK. If there really is "the
> > child support issue", I doubt if it is this one.
>
> The child support system in the US and UK are based on the
> same treaties and international conventions.
Not true. (But you are welcome to post identification of those treaties and
international conventions so that your assertion can be examined).
The child support system in the UK originated long before there were such
treaties, etc. The origins were probably in the early 17th Century, when the
public supported those who were unable to support themselves, but sought
reimbursement by imposing a legal liability upon financially able relatives.
(Finer Report). For example, in the case of bastard children, the liability was
limited to the mother and the putative father. The bastardy clauses of the Poor
Law of 1834 refined this, but by contraining the amounts to the cost to the
parish of supporting the child (and also limited it to the first 7 years of the
child). However, child support, although not in name, was present then. This
continued pretty well unchanged until WW2.
Obviously, this changed dramatically in 1948 (with the National Assistance Act),
which overruled much of what had gone before. This is an illustration of how the
politics of the day can change what has already been established. But some of
the key principles were still there - the state provided, and then called upon
parents. It carried forward some of the principles of the Poor Law of 1927, but
limited the liable relatives to husbands and wives and to parents. So - "liable
relatives" were still in law in 1948. And they have been there since, at least
until 1993.
> They share the same basic law.
Not true. Are you seriously saying that the USA shares the 1834 and 1927 laws,
the liable relative laws, the National Assistance Act, etc?
If you or anyone REALLY wants to know what the UK's child support is, have a
look at:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/the_legislation.htm
I defy you to identify any serious compatibility with the laws of any other
nation.
Hint: anyone searching for more information should look at "child maintenance"
as well as "child support". The latter term is mostly a late arrival in most
countries, perhaps from the USA. Even the UK still officially calls the payments
"child support maintenance", and often just uses (qualified) "maintenance" as in
"maintenance assessment". Many countries simply use the term "child
maintenance", or variants. "Child support" is sometimes handled by international
agencies in a much broader sense, including support for children from the state.
So examination of the term "child support" will give a very misleading and
restricted view.
> We're all discussing the effects of exactly the same international
> conspiracy to eliminate basic rights and establish the policies
> of an international dictatorship.
No we are not. There is no such conspiracy. There is no such dictatorship. You
are not a script-writer for the X-Files!
> We all know there are people on both sides of the issue.
> Barry, you've spent a lot of time trying to cover up the
> fact that the western rule of law has been abolished in favor
> of arbitrarily control policies developed through socialist
> dictatorships.
There is no such fact. I have therefore not had to spend a lot of time covering
up that non-existent fact.
The UK's child support system was established as an anti-socialist measure by an
anti-socialist government. Its aim was to reduce social security (welfare)
expenditure by putting responsiblity for the raising of children back onto
parents, even when separated, instead of letting them claim from the state (ie,
from taxpayers). The fact that is was anti-socialist is inconvenient to some
people - they want to be able to rationalise their hatred of paying child
support into an identifiable enemy, such as socialism. But, in the UK, that is
just plain silly!
My understanding is that the USA's child support is rooted in the invention of a
legally enforceable child support obligation by American courts in the
nineteenth century. Child support is very old, even in the USA:
The American invention of child support: dependency and punishment in early
American child support law.
Source: Yale Law Journal
Date: 03/1999
Document ID: PN19990526010000131
Citation Information: (108 5) Start Page: 1123-1153 ISSN: 0044-0094
Author(s): Hansen, Drew D
http://ancpr.org/american_invention_of_child_supp.htm
"The judges who created a child support obligation were motivated both by a
desire to help needy single mothers and by a belief in conserving the
poor-relief system's resources by shifting the responsibility for aiding these
families onto nonsupporting fathers. In the second phase, many states in the
late nineteenth century enacted criminal nonsupport statutes to force fathers to
provide for their wives and children".
> You'd like to limit comments so that you can continue to pretend
> that the child support system in England is a natural evolution
> based on democratic principles and procedures.
It is. I don't need to limit comments, because that fact is pretty obvious. What
I am finding is that this also applies to other countries too. A number of
countries had child support systems pre-WW2, sometimes in the 19th Century, and
these systems have then developed from there as a result of the various
pressures in those countries. (But, as I said above, they typically didn't use
the therm "child support". Even where they used English, they often used the
term "child maintenance").
Many countries have child maintenenance / child support systems. For example,
try the following search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22child+maintenance%22+h
istory&btnG=Google+Search
(A Google search on "child maintenance" history).
You will find material from Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Finland, etc. What
is happening is that many nations are facing similar problems. Lots of separated
families, a desire by taxpayers not to pay too much towards other people's
children, an increasing feeling that the fate of children matters to society.
There is a degree of "convergent evolution" - nations tending to adopt somewhat
similar solutions to similar problems. Similarities arise from the very obvious
fact that they talk to one-another. When the UK has a social problem, people go
and visit other nations who have similar problems, especially if they have put
in place measures to solve those problems. News travels. (Unfortanately, the UK
then went its own unique way, with disastrous results!)
The Finer Report (1974) examined some schemes across Europe, and said: "No
foreign programme is so simple or so isolated from its national context as to
commend itself for direct importation into another coutry. Operating in
different environments, any given policy toward one-parent families is likely to
acquire different practical meanings. At the same time, however, nations can
learn from the experiences of others, and, even where lessons are ambiguous,
different approaches can suggest a broader range of options than might appear in
isolation". (Volume 2, page 16). THAT is where similarities come from!
There is no conspiracy. But, of course, conspiracy theorists treat such
statements as proof of the conspiracy!
> Ain't gonna happen.
I accept that I will not be able to convince conspiracy theorists that they have
lost contact with reality.
But I don't need to. I am trying to help reform the UK's child support system.
Conspiracy theorists will have little impact on that - they are unlikely to be
of much help, but equally they are unlikely to be able to hinder much. I can
confidently carry on knowing that there is little or no critical thinking
opposed to what I am proposing.
Barry Pearson
> You should take your political ideas to the appropriate NGs.
There appear to be some useful alt.conspiracy.* newsgroups!
> I think they are a load of shite.
Just out of touch with the reality of the UK.
RogerFGay
> "Stan Mould" <stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:uT%m9.3985$NW1.26...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> > You should take your political ideas to the appropriate NGs.
>
> There appear to be some useful alt.conspiracy.* newsgroups!
>
> > I think they are a load of shite.
>
> Just out of touch with the reality of the UK.
No Barry. We just don't agree with you that government's should act
arbitrarily with the intent to cause intense damage to a large group
of citizens. We disagree with you that it's ok to harm men just
because some anti-male propaganda has been circulated. We disagree
with you that the west should be decoupled from its liberal roots
altogether in favor of dictatorships controlled by an international
organization. We disagree with you that Marxist socialism should rise
again in the West after falling in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<NTln9.4753$h43....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> > There appear to be some useful alt.conspiracy.* newsgroups!
> > Just out of touch with the reality of the UK.
>
Below, I challenge your use of "we". Who are you who believe these specific
conspiracy theories? Where do you live? How many of you are there? Do you
matter?
> No Barry. We just don't agree with you that government's
> should act arbitrarily with the intent to cause intense damage
> to a large group of citizens.
Few if any people believe that "government's should act arbitrarily with the
intent to cause intense damage to a large group of citizens". (I don't). If you
believe ANYONE in the world does, please supply evidence!
Where child support / child maintenance is concerned, the effects may be painful
to some of the parties. That does not mean "intent" - it may simply be a
consequence of the obvious fact that where there are multiple parties, there
will be winners & losers whatever is decided. It may be the result of
incompetent administration, as with the UK's system. But it is unlikely to be be
"intent" - what would be the point, and to whom?
> We disagree with you that it's ok to harm men just
> because some anti-male propaganda has been
> circulated.
Few if any people believe that "it's ok to harm men just because some anti-male
propaganda has been circulated". (I don't). If you believe ANYONE in the world
does, please supply evidence!
Your statement is so silly that I feel no need to comment further.
> We disagree with you that the west should be decoupled
> from its liberal roots altogether in favor of dictatorships
> controlled by an international organization.
Few if any people believe that "the west should be decoupled from its liberal
roots altogether in favor of dictatorships controlled by an international
organization". (I don't). If you believe ANYONE in the world does, please supply
evidence!
As I research the history of child support / child maintenance, I realise that
it is compatible with the traditions of "Western civilisation" (which is why it
is most evident in "the West", and least evident in "the East").
The more "Western" a nation, the less likely it is that "the state" will be
providing for children, but also the more likely it is that there will be a
regard & respect for children's rights. I believe that the more "Western" the
nation, the higher will be the child support / child maintenance payment needed
to bring the children to the standard required by such "Western nations", given
the low levels of assistance supplied by such a nation. That may be why the USA
appears to have the highest levels of child support, with the UK somewhat less,
and nations such as Denmark which have higher levels of state assistance needing
even less child support / child maintenance.
> We disagree with you that Marxist socialism should
> rise again in the West after falling in the Soviet Union
> and elsewhere.
Few if any people believe that "Marxist socialism should rise again in the West
after falling in the Soviet Union and elsewhere". (I don't). If you believe
ANYONE in the world does, please supply evidence!
I suspect that the USSR learned aspects of child support / child maintenance
from "the West"! Child support / child maintenance can be traced back to
pre-USSR in the USA and the UK, where it grew as an anti-socialist measure.
Perhaps the USSR adopted "a good idea" from "the West", or else independently
arrived at the rather obvious idea that state-expenditures can be reduced by
maximising the contributions that parents make to the cost of raising their own
children.
I intend to research the history of child support / child maintenance across the
world, and I will publish it on my web site. We need to get beyond conspiracy
theories, and start to base our views on what really happened.
RogerFGay
>
> Where child support / child maintenance is concerned, the effects may be painful
> to some of the parties. That does not mean "intent"
Yes it does. We know about those effects. They were understood when
the policy was created. The policy was chosen and is enforced. Intent
is clearly established.
Bad Man
Agreed. While I could accept Barry's argument in the first year or two of
the CSA, that there has been no real attempt to ease the misery , and that
the misery continues, demonstrates intent.
Martin Davies
No real attempt?
Sorry, you are wrong.
Since 1996 (maybe even before then), the government has been working
on the new laws to replace the child support act 1991.
There have been changes made to the 1991 act, with several amendments,
most of which helped NRPs.
The government then produced the green paper for child support in
summer of 1998, and then took on board some of the comments and ideas
people provided in response to that.
And so we have ended up with a better system - the new child support
act, parts of which have already been implemented.
The main bit which everyone is waiting for has needed a new computer
system - and we are still waiting for EDS to finish it and test it
fully.
So the intent, since at least February 1994 (the first amendment to
the 1991 act), has been to work out fairer child support (the 1993
assessments were quite frnkly brutal in comparison to later
assessments).
Whether the intent will work in practise, we'll have to wait and see.
Its still a crap system, only better than what we have now.
Judging by how the policy was origionally written, and how it actually
turned out, the government made a mistake. Not suprisingly, many
people resented the origional assessments as they took very little
into account, and ignored clean break settlements altogether.
Martin <><
RogerFGay
There's this ongoing attempt to avoid fixing the problem by keeping
everyone's attention focused on adjustment of variables / details when
it's the whole overall model / system that's wrong. You can't start
with the idea that government is going to forcefully manage the
private lives of individuals using arbitrary standards (calling it
"social policy") and ever end up with anything good. The only way to
fix it is to return to liberal roots. An individual's personal life is
his own business. All these problems can be solved by applying the
established rules that government involvement must be minimized, and
any decision the government forces on someone must be extremely well
justified; not just as to the presence of government but as to the
detail of what the government forces an individual to do. The current
CSA is based on the idea that government has a legitimate interest and
authority that just ain't on the reality map.
Bad Man
I'll not argue the fairness of the proposed system as I am not close enough
to the detail and the effects. But we ARE in 2002 (late 2002 at that). That
is YEARS since the original and we are still in an unfair situation. The
arguments of it being unfair on mothers receiving maintenance or that a such
massive change requires time are fatuous.
RogerFGay
The mistake the government made, in the UK and the US was to believe
that everyone would be stupid enough to buy the reform argument over
and over again. The saying goes, fool me once shame on you; fool me
twice shame on me. Now the agenda is moving forward. The problems
haven't been fixed. The whole thing was corruption and sham. Now, ...
just who the hell do you think you're talkin' to .... it's going to be
better when it's computerized? Look -- I guess the way I'll take this
is not to be so personally offended. We'll just have to assume that
you're the idiot.
Martin Davies
What is the alternitive in a democracy to reform?
Whether they just tweak it, or start completely from scratch, to me
its reform.
The saying goes, fool me once shame on you; fool me
> twice shame on me. Now the agenda is moving forward. The problems
> haven't been fixed.
Some have.
The major problems with the formula that have been fixed with the new
one are pensions (100% allowed instead of 50%), no partners taken into
account, no carers premium in the assessment (too many people saw that
as some kind of spousal maintenance), and lower maximum percentages.
Plus easier to see if its correct or not.
There are other major problems, some of which the CSA cannot sort out
as its beyond its remit, others which are merely administrative and
can possibly be sorted with an easier to understand formula, though
we'll have to wait and see.
Fixing some of the problems at least makes things better.
And many people didn't bother replying to the green paper the
government produced as a consultation document in 1998 - 1600 replies
(some from staff) and about a million live cases (so approx 2 million
adults affected directly).
The whole thing was corruption and sham.
The corruption isn't in the CSA - it isn't in the law either.
It may be in the way things are done by the lawyers - legal bills of
thousands of pounds to get no access are more common than they should
be.
Now, ...
> just who the hell do you think you're talkin' to .... it's going to be
> better when it's computerized?
Who said it wasn't computerised?
Its going to be a different computer system - and an American company
famous in the UK for its computer problems (tax office, passport
office, air traffic control problems) is doing it.
Costing so far well over £200 million.
Having it computerised is far better than just having it clerical
(I've worked in both sorts of DSS offices, its far quicker on the
computer, by a factor of over 20).
Look -- I guess the way I'll take this
> is not to be so personally offended. We'll just have to assume that
> you're the idiot.
I'm not offended - and who is the idiot remains to be seen.
Martin <><
(off to bed for a well earned days sleep)
Barry Pearson
> > The mistake the government made, in the UK and the US was to believe
> > that everyone would be stupid enough to buy the reform argument over
> > and over again.
I suggest you stop speaking for the UK system - time after time you
show that you don't know much about it.
[snip]
> The saying goes, fool me once shame on you; fool me
> > twice shame on me. Now the agenda is moving forward. The problems
> > haven't been fixed.
>
> Some have.
>
> The major problems with the formula that have been fixed with the new
> one are pensions (100% allowed instead of 50%), no partners taken into
> account, no carers premium in the assessment (too many people saw that
> as some kind of spousal maintenance), and lower maximum percentages.
> Plus easier to see if its correct or not.
Plus the threshold for the shared care formula is now 52 nights per year,
not 104.
> There are other major problems, some of which the CSA cannot sort out
> as its beyond its remit, others which are merely administrative and
> can possibly be sorted with an easier to understand formula, though
> we'll have to wait and see.
Here is a summary, including nearly all the changes:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/reform/reformed_scheme_summary_changes.htm
[snip]
> > Now, ...
> > just who the hell do you think you're talkin' to .... it's going to be
> > better when it's computerized?
>
> Who said it wasn't computerised?
> Its going to be a different computer system - and an American company
> famous in the UK for its computer problems (tax office, passport
> office, air traffic control problems) is doing it.
> Costing so far well over £200 million.
>
> Having it computerised is far better than just having it clerical
> (I've worked in both sorts of DSS offices, its far quicker on the
> computer, by a factor of over 20).
[snip]
There is an important point in here. There are various factors that cause
child maintenance / child support systems to evolve over time. Many of
these factors are common to different countries, which accounts for some
of the similarities. (Although many of the apparent similarities turn out to
be illusions, because the systems fit into different contexts - for example,
the interaction with the social security system in the UK makes the CSA
an anti-socialist measure).
One such factor is the ability to computerise a central agency. I suspect
that countries will increasingly take this opportunity.
RogerFGay
"Martin Davies" <martin...@cableinet.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:a7643214.02100...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > The mistake the government made, in the UK and the US was to believe
> > that everyone would be stupid enough to buy the reform argument over
> > and over again.
>
> What is the alternitive in a democracy to reform?
>
> Whether they just tweak it, or start completely from scratch, to me
> its reform.
>
>
>
How many hundreds of years has the UK had to get child support right? This
idea that "democracy" requires continual re-evaluation and arbitrary
modification of the way government manipulates individuals is way too far
into the scale of extremist political views. Just like ín the US, the courts
in the UK had already figured out what "child support" is and what the
fundamental rules are for making decisions. This new round of confusion and
arbitrary manipulation is entirely artificial. It's abuse of power -
corruption. That's what always happens when people abuse the concept of
"democracy" to make it mean that the power of the elected extends into
arbitrary manipulation of individuals.
RogerFGay
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:vSfo9.912$s52.85635@newsfep2-gui...
> "Martin Davies" <martin...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7643214.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message
news:<4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> [snip]
> > > The mistake the government made, in the UK and the US was to believe
> > > that everyone would be stupid enough to buy the reform argument over
> > > and over again.
>
> I suggest you stop speaking for the UK system - time after time you
> show that you don't know much about it.
>
>
I suggest that you've already tried nationalism to help sell your extremist
socialist political views. National Socialism, as we know, went by the name
Naziism.
Barry Pearson
news:<tdGm9.788$kU4.101359@newsfep2-gui>...
> >
> > The second point is that it is probably a "stretch" to say that issues with
> > definitions in one of the United States counts as an "international issue".
I
> > would have seen it anyway because I subscribe to alt.child-support, but
> > uk.gov.agency.csa is deliberately scoped to the UK. If there really is "the
> > child support issue", I doubt if it is this one.
>
> The child support system in the US and UK are based on the same
> treaties and international conventions.
I believe there are NO common treaties and international conventions
underpinning the US and UK systems.
I asked you to identify what you thought they were. You didn't answer. So I'll
ask again - please identify the "treaties and international conventions" that
you claim the US and UK systems are based on. Else stop making the claim.
Here are some treaties and international conventions that they are NOT based on:
UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Ratified: UK, 1976; USA, 1992.
UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Ratified: UK, 1976; USA, not yet.
UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
Ratified: UK, 1986; USA, 2002?
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Ratified: UK, 1992; USA, not yet.
As you can see, not only does the USA tend to be late (if ever) ratifying such
conventions, but the dates don't match the dates for the child support
legislation in these countries. Child support is NOT being driven by treaties
and international conventions!
Barry Pearson
> An individual's personal life is his own business.
Only if it isn't in conflict with other people. And that is just what child
support is all about.
When people separate, there are at least 3 stakeholders in potential conflict:
mother, father, children. If one of them calls upon authorities, perhaps the
state, for help, there is then another stakeholder: the taxpayers.
Where the stakeholders cannot come to their own agreement, it is necessary to
have an arbitration mechanism to sort out distribution of assets, care of the
children, and financial support for the children.
The discussion here is about the nature of that arbitration mechanism - I hope
that no one believes we don't need one!
Barry Pearson
news:anos84$rrh$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> Agreed. While I could accept Barry's argument in the first year or two of
> the CSA, that there has been no real attempt to ease the misery , and that
> the misery continues, demonstrates intent.
There has been a real attempt - the 2000 Act reform of the child support law.
(And, of course, before that the 1995 Act which made a significant set of
changes).
It now awaits a new computer system, and then it can start.
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
> news:vSfo9.912$s52.85635@newsfep2-gui...
> > I suggest you stop speaking for the UK system - time after time you
> > show that you don't know much about it.
>
> I suggest that you've already tried nationalism to help sell your extremist
> socialist political views. National Socialism, as we know, went by the
> name Naziism.
Earlier in this thread you said "We disagree with you that Marxist socialism
should rise again in the West after falling in the Soviet Union and elsewhere".
Now you accuse me of Nazism! In case you didn't know, this is different from
Marxism, and in fact the battle between the Marxist-like Russia and Nazi-Germany
was one of the bloodiest in history. I suggest you study history and decide what
you think I am guilty of.
What I am guilty of is developing a fact-based, evidence-based, view of child
maintenance and child support over the last century or two. I will continue to
do this, and document the results, so that in future people can see their way
through the bullshit.
Many nations initiated their child maintenance / child support policies long
ago, long before Marxism & Nazism were credible. They did so typically to reduce
their social security / welfare expenditure, by making the parents of the child
primarily responsible before the taxpayers has to provide. In other words,
typically as an anti-socialist measure. This is how child support started in the
USA, for example.
Those nations have continued to evolve their child maintenance / child support
policies since then. They have vastly different systems and laws from
one-another, implemented in different ways according to the national reference.
They obviously talk to one-another, which accounts for some cross-pollination of
ideas. But it is typically impossible to copy a scheme from one country to
another.
No international treaties & conventions were involved. Mostly they didn't even
exist when countries started to develop their child maintenance / child support
systems. Even where they did, some key countries haven't ratified them. For
example, the one international convention I know of with clear reference to
child support is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. But the USA is
one of the 2 countries in the world that hasn't ratified it (the other is
Somalia). So it has not guided USA policy.
Martin Davies
> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> > An individual's personal life is his own business.
> [snip]
>
> Only if it isn't in conflict with other people. And that is just what child
> support is all about.
>
> When people separate, there are at least 3 stakeholders in potential conflict:
> mother, father, children. If one of them calls upon authorities, perhaps the
> state, for help, there is then another stakeholder: the taxpayers.
Perhaps people feel that if they dump their kids, whoever they dump
the kids with shouldn't be able to get any help from the government?
Or if their partner takes the kids and leaves, again, no help from the
government?
Would people want to get rid of the welfare state while they are at
it?
In Scotland (which has a few different laws from the rest of the UK) a
child aged 12 or over can claim child support in their own right.
Not old enough to vote, not old enough to drive, not old enough to
consent to sex, but old enough to fill in a child support claim form
and demand child support.
>
> Where the stakeholders cannot come to their own agreement, it is necessary to
> have an arbitration mechanism to sort out distribution of assets, care of the
> children, and financial support for the children.
>
People can come to an agreement themselves, use
solicitors/bloodsuckers to come to an agreement (maybe with one side
claiming legal aid and running up big bills for both?), or use a third
party to work out an agreement.
Whether that 3rd party is the CSA, the courts, the local laird, or
family friend, thats debateable.
But sometimes a 3rd party is necessary - as many people have found
out.
Sometimes the woman wants too much child support than the man wants to
pay out.
Sometimes he wants to pay too little compared to what she wants.
Sometimes each of them has too many outgoings to be able to afford
much, so she wants enough to help raise the child (food, clothing etc)
and he wants to be able to run the car back and forth to work, or pay
bills etc.
Often there are debts from the relationship that have to be paid by
one or both.
So thats when they cannot agree - or will not agree.
I've used men and women above as the most common way things happen -
though you can easily reverse it (and not suprisingly, often women are
earning less than the men due to less time in the career, less hours
available to work etc, so a woman having to pay child support to a man
might find it harder to pay as much as the other way round).
> The discussion here is about the nature of that arbitration mechanism - I hope
> that no one believes we don't need one!
We do need one.
We just don't like what we have - which is why some of us are working
on what ideas could make up a better system.
Martin <><
Barry Pearson
You said "We just don't agree with you that government's should act arbitrarily
with the intent to cause intense damage to a large group of citizens".
I don't believe for a second that the INTENT was "to cause intense damage to a
large group of citizens". Do you REALLY believe politicians are going to do
that?
But if you believe that, please supply evidence. Else accept that it is simply
your opinion.
Barry Pearson
> "Martin Davies" <martin...@cableinet.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
> news:a7643214.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) wrote in message
> news:<4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > The mistake the government made, in the UK and the US was to
> > > believe that everyone would be stupid enough to buy the reform
> > > argument over and over again.
> >
> > What is the alternitive in a democracy to reform?
> >
> > Whether they just tweak it, or start completely from scratch, to
> > me its reform.
>
> How many hundreds of years has the UK had to get child support right?
Like speed limits, tax percentages, reactions to new technologies, reactions to
other societal changes - child support and all of these things need to evolve.
> This idea that "democracy" requires continual re-evaluation and
> arbitrary modification of the way government manipulates
> individuals is way too far into the scale of extremist political views.
(I dispute "arbitrary").
Democracies need re-evaluation of many policies in the light of societal
changes, technology changes, economic changes, etc. The sort of child support
system you have with a small population and/or paper administration systems
and/or children leaving school in their early teens is likely to be different
from one in an era of a much larger population, big computers, and children
staying at school until their late teens.
(Totalitarion states can be a bit more rigid than this!)
> Just like ín the US, the courts in the UK had already figured out
> what "child support" is and what the fundamental rules are for making
> decisions.
No they hadn't - it is clear they had it badly wrong. They often used the
principle of making a small award so that the father could start a new family,
while expecting the state to support the mother and child. But the state -
really voter/taxpayers - didn't like this, and voted in a government to do
something about it.
Also, don't assume that there was just a court system before the CSA. There were
a number of ways of sorting out child support depending on circumstances, and
these combined in unsatisfactory ways. For example, there was the Liable
Relatives Unit as part of the Social Security system, trying to reduce social
security expenditure. And there were 2 (or more) court systems, crown courts and
magistrates courts.
> This new round of confusion and arbitrary manipulation is entirely
> artificial.
It is simplification, not confusion - see above. And certainly not arbitrary.
> It's abuse of power - corruption. That's what always happens when
> people abuse the concept of "democracy" to make it mean that the
> power of the elected extends into arbitrary manipulation of individuals.
When there is a conflict between people - winners & losers - that is what a
democracy has to do - decide the winners & losers. And child support is the
classic example of winners & losers, with sometimes 4 stakeholders (mother,
father, child, taxpayers).
RogerFGay
>
> Like speed limits, tax percentages, reactions to new technologies, reactions to
> other societal changes - child support and all of these things need to evolve.
> changes, technology changes, economic changes, etc.
It's impossible to discuss anything rationally with a leftist
extremist like yourself. Time has passed, therefore we need to change
things. Anything that is established is bad, because time has passed.
Your argument [snipped] that people in big cities must live in an
alternate reality plane is right out of the Marxist play-book.
Somebody forgot to tell you that we've had big cities for a very long
time. The transformation from agricultural societies happened way
before you were born. There was this thing called the Industrial
Revolution ... you missed that. Get out of Marx and into something
more up to date. The real world has passed you by.
We already understand the conclusion of your argument. It isn't new.
It isn't a modern adaptation. The individual should be killed, and we
should all, as a group, be subject to the capricious whims of
dictators implemented in arbitrary ways by simple-minded bureacrats.
The fact is, that it isn't up to you how other people adapt and cope
with the complexities of life. There is no need for a master plan that
treats people in bulk in every dimension and in every detail of their
lives. We have fought you since the beginning of man-kind and we will
fight you again, whenever you arise and no matter what it takes. We
fight you when you join small groups or act alone to assault us on the
streets and sneak into our homes to steal our belongings. We fight you
when you organize to subjugate and pillage en masse.
Your goal is to organize to defeat every other human within your
sphere, and it is opposed to our fundamental nature to let you get
away with it.
Dave
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<QzSp9.6152$345.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:10340768...@news2.cybercity.dk...
> >
> >
> > > How many hundreds of years has the UK had to get child support right?
> >
> > Like speed limits, tax percentages, reactions to new technologies,
reactions to
> > other societal changes - child support and all of these things need to
evolve.
> > Democracies need re-evaluation of many policies in the light of societal
> > changes, technology changes, economic changes, etc.
>
>
> It's impossible to discuss anything rationally with a leftist
> extremist like yourself.
What is funny is that Barry posted here before that he leans more
Liberatarin. How is that for a stretch!
Time has passed, therefore we need to change
> things. Anything that is established is bad, because time has passed.
> Your argument [snipped] that people in big cities must live in an
> alternate reality plane is right out of the Marxist play-book.
> Somebody forgot to tell you that we've had big cities for a very long
> time. The transformation from agricultural societies happened way
> before you were born. There was this thing called the Industrial
> Revolution ... you missed that. Get out of Marx and into something
> more up to date. The real world has passed you by.
>
> We already understand the conclusion of your argument. It isn't new.
> It isn't a modern adaptation. The individual should be killed, and we
> should all, as a group, be subject to the capricious whims of
> dictators implemented in arbitrary ways by simple-minded bureacrats.
> The fact is, that it isn't up to you how other people adapt and cope
> with the complexities of life. There is no need for a master plan that
> treats people in bulk in every dimension and in every detail of their
> lives. We have fought you since the beginning of man-kind and we will
> fight you again, whenever you arise and no matter what it takes. We
> fight you when you join small groups or act alone to assault us on the
> streets and sneak into our homes to steal our belongings. We fight you
> when you organize to subjugate and pillage en masse.
>
> Your goal is to organize to defeat every other human within your
> sphere, and it is opposed to our fundamental nature to let you get
> away with it.
Amen brother.
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<QzSp9.6152$345.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:10340768...@news2.cybercity.dk...
> >
> > > How many hundreds of years has the UK had to get child support
> > > right?
> >
> > Like speed limits, tax percentages, reactions to new technologies,
> > reactions to other societal changes - child support and all of these
> > things need to evolve. Democracies need re-evaluation of many
> > policies in the light of societal changes, technology changes,
> > economic changes, etc.
>
> It's impossible to discuss anything rationally with a leftist
> extremist like yourself.
Most people consider me to have somewhat right-wing views. You simply lack
judgement, or else you have a reason for pretending that my views are different
from what they are.
> Time has passed, therefore we need to change
> things. Anything that is established is bad, because time has passed.
> Your argument [snipped] that people in big cities must live in an
> alternate reality plane is right out of the Marxist play-book.
I made no such argument. I suggest you read what I said - you appear to be
fantasising weird notions then responding to them.
> Somebody forgot to tell you that we've had big cities for a very long
> time. The transformation from agricultural societies happened way
> before you were born. There was this thing called the Industrial
> Revolution ... you missed that.
No-one forgot to tell me that - you simply fantasised some bizarre view about
what I said (or else you deliberately lied about what I said for reasons best
known to yourself), then respnded to your own version. Why are you doing this?
> Get out of Marx and into something
> more up to date. The real world has passed you by.
Chuckle! You develop a litigation technology which nations that don't use
litigation for child support will never adopt, and you think I have been passed
by?
> We already understand the conclusion of your argument. It isn't new.
> It isn't a modern adaptation.
I'm glad you finally understand something. You appear, so far, to have
misunderstood everything!
> The individual should be killed, and we
> should all, as a group, be subject to the capricious whims of
> dictators implemented in arbitrary ways by simple-minded bureacrats.
That may be your view. But I suspect you of being a totalitarian - your views
against democracy are rather extreme. You appear to feel that a new generation
must not be allowed to replace the policies of past generations. Perhaps you
simply have preferences that correspond to some time in the past and wish that
the policies of that time could be frozen onto place - but not so. Time moves
on - my web site is called "Child Support Analysis for the 21st Century" because
it looks forward, not back.
Try looking forward yourself sometime - don't just keep looking back. It may be
unpleasant that democracy gives people you disagree with a voice, and sometimes
even lets them set the rules, but live with it - you don't to fix the rules you
want all the time.
Perhaps if you despise democracy so much you should do what this man did:
Political observer of the week
A factory worker who says he is sick of democracy has applied for political
asylum in Iraq. Constantin Simion, 52, spent most of his life living under
Nicolae Ceausescu's dictatorship in Romania and says everything "has gone
downhill" under democratic rule. "I cannot wait to become one of Saddam's
people," he says. " If Iraq says no, I'll try my luck with Libya or Cuba,
anything that is a totalitarian regime. I'm sick of democracy."
Sunday Times, 13th October 2002
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-444340,00.html
> The fact is, that it isn't up to you how other people adapt and cope
> with the complexities of life. There is no need for a master plan that
> treats people in bulk in every dimension and in every detail of their
> lives. We have fought you since the beginning of man-kind and we will
> fight you again, whenever you arise and no matter what it takes. We
> fight you when you join small groups or act alone to assault us on the
> streets and sneak into our homes to steal our belongings. We fight you
> when you organize to subjugate and pillage en masse.
Wow! Fight away! You really appear to have lost your grip on reality!
This is the 21st Century. Society is very different from the 20th Century
(although I'm not convinced that you caught up with the 20th Century!) Family
life is changing. The ways that men, women, and children interact are changing.
It is no longer so acceptable for courts to decide that separated fathers should
pay relatively little for their children so that they can start new families,
while leaving "the state" to support separated mothers bringing up their
children. That idea stopped in the UK at the start of the 1990s.
It is time to try to identify a balance of rights and responsibilities between
separated fathers, mothers, children, and taxpayers, for the finances for
raising children. It got screwed up in the past (although some people prefered
the past because they "got away with it"). This may mean that instead of
separated fathers having the money to start new families, they should instead
have the opportunities to help raise the children they already have, even though
this may not leave them enough to start a new family. Children cost a lot - Who
should pay?
My Agenda has shared parenting as its first (and most important) item. It does
not, and will not, have any means for parents to walk away from their
responsibilities.
> Your goal is to organize to defeat every other human within your
> sphere, and it is opposed to our fundamental nature to let you get
> away with it.
Wow! So you think THAT is my goal? Just read that sentence - it must rank as one
of the most stupid sentences ever posted to Usenet!
I am still desperately trying to believe that you don't REALLY believe the
awesome crap you have been posting, and that you are simply having a joke at my
expense and the expense of anyone else reading your statements. But you are so
consistent with your paranoid conspiracy theory rubbish that I may have to come
to the conclusion that you ACTUALLY believe it! But could ANYONE in the world
actually mean what you have just said?
Look at some of your recent statements:
"Child support reforms have been about changing the system generally, from one
with individual rights / i.e. human rights and essential freedom from government
control and manipulation, to one in which the individual is dead and only a
centrally controlling, exercising unlimited arbitrary power matters. I've more
than once mentioned that the transition has been international. Somebody is
murdering the western world".
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0207300619.7adb02df@posting.g
oogle.com
"These policies that we're discussing were well developed in the communist world
and they were imported to the west. There is a clear distinction between the
system that defines western civilization and the socialist system. I can only
believe that you know that, and you've got me wondering why you're taking me
through the paces of false logic. There are bureacrats in London, therefore
we're all commies anyway". "These policies that we're discussing were well
developed in the communist world and they were imported to the west."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0207310007.32127466@posting.g
oogle.com
"We don't need theory to identify the child support system as communist. It's an
established fact that the child support system recently imported to the west,
including rigid en masse formulae for determining the amount to be ordered and
rigid enforcement policies that deny individual rights were imported from
socialist countries. It's a fact."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0207...@posting.go
ogle.com
"Yes, child support reforms have been part of an international movement. That
much is certainly an obvious fact by now to you and I."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0208030626.38c098d8@posting.g
oogle.com
"And there is another thread in this forum "Family verses Communism" in which
the specific ideas of anti-family Marxist Communism can and are easily compared
with current child support reforms in the west and the accompanying history of
propaganda -- which is certainly tied to radical Marxist feminism, an
international political movement."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0208030626.38c098d8@posting.g
oogle.com
"Did you know that communism, in the minds of Marxist communists, is the perfect
democracy? It's pure democracy, and pure democracy sucks. It's one of the most
unstable, inhuman, and oppressive systems ever invented."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0208030626.38c098d8@posting.g
oogle.com
"You reject the western rule of law and are obviously working toward
international socialist rule."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0208050219.79e6746b@posting.g
oogle.com
You reject the western rule of law. Look at what that's done for countries
outside of the west. Once you're outside the US and Western Europe (go a little
farther east) you'll find burning homes and bombed out buildings as the direct
result of raw group politics. You'll find (socialist) systems that exploit group
politics, intensify conflict, and then use one group to hold another in check.
You'll find rule by religous sects and pseudo-religous war-lords related to
oppression and eternal war."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0208050219.79e6746b@posting.g
oogle.com
"Barry's told us flat out that his agenda is to push internationalism (while its
still heavily influenced by the Marxist left)."
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b6433c3.0208110810.40a99701@posting.g
oogle.com
I have asked you a couple of times to identify the treaties and conventions in
your statement "The child support system in the US and UK are based on the same
treaties and international conventions". You haven't responded, as far as I can
tell. Since there are no such treaties and conventions this is not surprising. I
will keep asking.
I am also building up a map of countries, treaties & conventions, and child
support evolution, so that it will be absolutely clear that this is not an
international conspiracy, but in fact the normal sort of evolution of national
policies supported by cross-pollination of useful ideas where relevant. Child
maintenance and child support are the natural responses of countries struggling
with the issues of the finances of raising the children of separated families.
Child maintenance typically started from the 17th to the 19th Centuries, long
before they could have been influenced by Marxism.
If anyone has valuable material that I should be aware of to help me build this
picture, please post it or email me.
Barry Pearson
[snip]
> The child support system in the US and UK are based
> on the same treaties and international conventions.
Please identify what such treaties and conventions you think there are.
(But I won't hold my breath - I don't believe there are any!)
I've already asked you twice for this identification, and my requests
are in the Google Groups archive:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=uLln9.4724$h43....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net
RFG: The child support system in the US and UK are based on the same
treaties and international conventions.
BP: Not true. (But you are welcome to post identification of those
treaties and international conventions so that your assertion can
be examined). The child support system in the UK originated long
before there were such treaties, etc. The origins were probably
in the early 17th Century, when the public supported those who
were unable to support themselves, but sought reimbursement by
imposing a legal liability upon financially able relatives.
(Finer Report).
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=B7%o9.6862$QY.4...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net
RFG: The child support system in the US and UK are based on the same
treaties and international conventions.
BP: I believe there are NO common treaties and international conventions
underpinning the US and UK systems. I asked you to identify what you
thought they were. You didn't answer. So I'll ask again - please identify
the "treaties and international conventions" that you claim the US and UK
systems are based on. Else stop making the claim. Here are some treaties
and international conventions that they are NOT based on:
(I've snipped the list).
I intend to keep challenging your false statements about the development
of child maintenance / support across the world.
RogerFGay
> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> [snip]
> > The child support system in the US and UK are based
> > on the same treaties and international conventions.
> [snip]
>
> Please identify what such treaties and conventions you think there are.
> (But I won't hold my breath - I don't believe there are any!)
>
> I've already asked you twice for this identification, and my requests
> are in the Google Groups archive:
>
>
I've been perfectly open with such information, although I think
anyone who wants to understand how things work in detail should start
with the links page at my web site and spend a good bit of time
tracking information. Start with:
HAGUE CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
CONFÉRENCE DE LA HAYE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVÉ
MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS
http://www.hcch.net/e/workprog/maint.html
The Hague conferences, specific meetings on the topic of maintenance
obligations, yield agreements that extend the details beyond what is
formally agreed in the written Conference. You won't see the
correlation between issues at the meetings and current policy without
getting a summary reports from conferences. The other links on my
links page under "international" provide information about
international organizations to which some of the really major players
in international child support reform belong. Information and policy
preferences are also shared with people from many countries through
the activities of those private organizations, establishing a set of
"conventions" shared by this particular small group of people. These
movers and shakers in individual countries then influence the policy
within those countries along the lines of what members of the group
have established as convention. Examples of movers and shakers in the
US include Irwin Garfinkel, Sara McLananan, and Merigold Meli. They
got the ideas for child support reform from socialist countries like
Soviet Russia, and have subsequently had the most influence on policy
changes in the US, Australia, New Zealand, and indirectly in a number
of other countries, including in the UK.
For those who are sincere about historical research and understanding
how international child support policy is formulated, I suggest
looking through the "international" links on my links page:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5910/links.html
For Barry, I can already imagine the load of crap he's going to post
to try to get around this.
RogerFGay
You're going to have a tough time selling the idea that we must
transform our form of "democracy" from its established liberal roots
to totalitarian bureacracy because the population is growing. Your
argument is that there are now too many people for anyone to have
rights. We can no longer be in any sense "free" now that there are
more people and "big computers." I snipped that part of your
commentary from my last response to you in this sub-thread, but you
just have to go back to your post that I previously responded to and
its right there. It amazes me that in an online forum such as this,
where there's an actualy permenent record of what was said, that some
people are stupid enough to deny saying what they said when it's so
easy to check. That kind of trick might work for you in other settings
Barry, but it doesn't work here.
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<OXlq9.4340$JJ4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b6433c3.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > [snip]
> > > The child support system in the US and UK are based
> > > on the same treaties and international conventions.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Please identify what such treaties and conventions you think there are.
> > (But I won't hold my breath - I don't believe there are any!)
> >
> > I've already asked you twice for this identification, and my requests
> > are in the Google Groups archive:
>
> I've been perfectly open with such information, although I think
> anyone who wants to understand how things work in detail should start
> with the links page at my web site and spend a good bit of time
> tracking information. Start with:
>
> HAGUE CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
> CONFÉRENCE DE LA HAYE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVÉ
> MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS
> http://www.hcch.net/e/workprog/maint.html
The Hague Conference has nothing whatsoever to do with the UK's Child Support
Agency.
First:
The Conference's purpose is to work for the progressive unification of the rules
of private international law. Note "private". Its mission is to facilitate both
the relationships between private parties across international borders and
international legal transactions. In effect, it is establishing a framework to
enable litigation to work across borders, so that people can have more
confidence in international commerce and society.
Some examples of cross-border frameworks: civil procedure, service of process,
taking of evidence abroad, legalisation, conflicts of laws relating to
testamentary dispositions, maintenance obligations, recognition of divorces,
protection of minors, international child abduction and intercountry adoption.
Some of the Hague Conventions deal with the determination of the applicable law,
some with the conflict of jurisdictions, some with the recognition and
enforcement of foreign judgments and some with administrative and judicial
co-operation between authorities. Some of the Hague Conventions combine one or
more of these aspects of private international law.
Second:
The Conference does not tell governments how to legislate and operate their
domestic law. (Actually, on request it will provide assistance in the form of
expert advice, and some countries trying to establish their own rule of law have
asked for help, which is non-binding).
Third:
The UK, at least, does not simply accept everything the Conference says.
Typically the UK enacts a special law for the purpose, taking into account
relevant conventions. For example, certain internation conventions on reciprocal
maintenance enforcement were given power in the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal
Enforcement) Act 1992 and The Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders
(Hague Convention Countries) Order 1993. The UK government isn't dictated to, it
chooses what to buy into.
The USA, I understand, tends to work the same. It is worth looking at the states
that have signed up to the various cross-border maintenance conventions - I
don't see the USA in the list, although the UK is in the list for one of them -
I believe that this FOLLOWED the UK's Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal
Enforcement) Act 1972 (which has now been superceded by the 1992 Act). So the
sequence is - work with the Conference to help make the conventions suitable,
then where relevant go through the standard legislative process to make a law,
then sign the convention with whatever reservations arose in the legislation.
The conventions are not binding on Parliament, which will buy into what it
chooses, and opt-out of bits it doesn't like.
Fourth:
The UK's Child Support Agency is completely separate from the UK's law on
cross-border maintenance, and hence separate from the Hague Conference. Any case
that falls within the jurisdiction of the CSA isn't within the scope of the
convention, and any case that is within the scope of the convention isn't within
the jurisdiction of the CSA. The UK's involvement with the Conference is via the
Lord Chancellor's Department (hence the court system). The CSA fits elsewhere -
currently into the social security system.
> The Hague conferences, specific meetings on the topic of maintenance
> obligations, yield agreements that extend the details beyond what is
> formally agreed in the written Conference. You won't see the
> correlation between issues at the meetings and current policy without
> getting a summary reports from conferences.
See above - all that actually matters in what is published in the conventions,
and then the UK Parliament makes up its own mind about whether to accept the
words as they are or else put something else into law. If the UK signs up to the
convention, it will do so with reservations as determined by the primacy of
Parliament. But it is the legislation that operates in the UK, not the
convention.
> The other links on my
> links page under "international" provide information about
> international organizations to which some of the really major players
> in international child support reform belong. Information and policy
> preferences are also shared with people from many countries through
> the activities of those private organizations, establishing a set of
> "conventions" shared by this particular small group of people. These
> movers and shakers in individual countries then influence the policy
> within those countries along the lines of what members of the group
> have established as convention. Examples of movers and shakers in the
> US include Irwin Garfinkel, Sara McLananan, and Merigold Meli. They
> got the ideas for child support reform from socialist countries like
> Soviet Russia, and have subsequently had the most influence on policy
> changes in the US, Australia, New Zealand, and indirectly in a number
> of other countries, including in the UK.
There is a very simple fact - the UK's Child Support Agency (and the 1991 Act it
is based upon) is very different from any other child support I have identified
in the world. It was driven as a right-wing anti-socialist measure designed to
reduce social security expenditure. (The courts had failed). In spite of
consulting with other countries, it ignored all the lessons, and went its own
way. Which is partly why it suffered the problems it did, and is undergoing
reform.
But, in fact, right across the world, there are many different child maintenance
/ child support models. They operate in different ways - through courts, central
offices (and these can be in different parts of the government system), local
offices, etc. (Sometimes there isn't a child maintenance / support system). They
started at different times in the countries' histories (England probably started
formal child maintenance in 1601, if not earlier). They evolve at different
rates according to the domestic situation in the country - its current political
flavor, social conditions, economic conditions, etc. They have different policy
objectives (although typically nowadays these are either the reduction in social
security / welfare expenditure or the reduction of child poverty).
They interact with other domestic systems in vastly different ways (which they
have to, of course, because those other systems are vastly different from
country to country). Child support law cannot be common across different
countries. They fit into different constitutional structures. The awards are
determined in different ways - negotiation, litigation, complex formula, simple
formula, various "escape" mechanisms (departures, etc), different appeal
systems, etc. They have different enforcement mechanisms. (They even have
different names! The UK's is called "child support maintenance").
Actual awards vary widely from country to country - I believe that right-wing
countries will tend to have less other state support for children and will tend
to make higher child support awards as a result. Countries with a more socialist
flavour (eg. Denmark) will provide extra state assistance and so tend to make
lower child support awards. (I am still researching this theory).
I think you are reading too much into the fact that some people (who speak
English) with knowledge of child support in one country talk to some politicians
(who speak English) in other countries, at the time that those politicians need
to evolve their child support systems to meet current policy objectives. The
UK's experience demonstrates that those "experts" have just as much or as little
influence as the government in those countries choose to let them have. There
are no valid excuses about international conspiracies - countries make their own
laws, and politicians must take the blame themselves. One thing the USA has
demonstrated time after time is how resistant it is to influences from
elsewhere, such as international treaties and conventions. The one significant
international convention that mentions child support by parents (the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child) has been ratified by all nations in the
world except 2 - the USA and Somalia.
And, of course, when it comes to English-speakers who offer advice and are
trying to influence policy, you and I both fall into that category. Are YOU part
of an international conspiracy? (I'm not).
You are welcome to study the reform process that the UK has been running since
1997. It is described at the following URL, and this provides access to all the
debates, committee work, consultation and policy papers, etc. I defy you to
identify any conspiracies there.
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/reform/reforme
d_scheme_where_to_read.htm
You can link to lots more information about the reforms from:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/csa_reform_programme.htm
> For those who are sincere about historical research and understanding
> how international child support policy is formulated, I suggest
> looking through the "international" links on my links page:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5910/links.html
>
> For Barry, I can already imagine the load of crap he's going to post
> to try to get around this.
I simply post facts, and they are sufficient to undermine your conspiracy
theories. I am starting to build a picture of the evolution of child maintenance
/ child support in various countries, showing dates of changes plus dates of
other significant events such as treaties and conventions, etc. I will be
publishing this on my web site, hopefully starting with the outline pages with a
few details ready for the 1st November.
RogerFGay
>
> The Hague Conference has nothing whatsoever to do with the UK's Child Support
> Agency.
>
> First:
> The Conference's purpose is to work for the progressive unification of the rules
> of private international law. Note "private".
It's obvious that whatever I say, you're going to say the opposite. I
gave you one chance to have an honest discussion about international
conventions and you're obviously not interested.
You've done a lot of work on promoting acceptance of international
socialism in the form of family policy reforms; particularly by trying
to paint the face of a local, loving, concerned, fatherly government
on it and excusing the chaos it creates as an inevitable fact of life.
But hold on -- keep the faith. The overlords will try to do right by
you next time. You know they love you, and without them, we'd have to
face life on our own -- which you claim none of us can handle.
It took a thousand years to advance western civiliztion to the point
it is today, and in less than a generation corruption such as yours
will cause its decline.
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<sWar9.2293$n61....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>
> > The Hague Conference has nothing whatsoever to do with the
> > UK's Child Support Agency.
> >
> > First:
> > The Conference's purpose is to work for the progressive
> > unification of the rules of private international law. Note "private".
>
> It's obvious that whatever I say, you're going to say the opposite.
No. If you tell the truth, I will agree with you. But every time I detect you
departing from the truth, I WILL respond with facts.
And, to repeat: the Hague Conference is nothing to do with the UK's CSA; and it
is about "private" law, not the domestic law of nations.
> I gave you one chance to have an honest discussion about
> international conventions and you're obviously not interested.
I am interested, and I gave an honest and comprehensive response. I happen to
know a lot about them, probably more than you.
But you didn't respond to my material - you have snipped it out. The Hague
Conference is not an international conspiracy. It does not say how a nation
should legislate for its child support system.
And - the USA has NOT ratified any of the Hague conventions on child
maintenance! NONE! It has stated explicitly that it has no intention of
ratifying any of the existing conventions. They have NO influence on the USA.
NONE!
Neither has the USA ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (But
that is probably because the USA tends to execute people for crimes they
committed while they were children, which only the Congo & Iran also do).
> You've done a lot of work on promoting acceptance of
> international socialism in the form of family policy reforms;
I have done no such work. I recognise your desperation to find a way to condemn
my efforts, and your need to lie to do so because there is no other way you can
criticise what I am doing. I expect others also recognise your lies.
> particularly by trying to paint the face of a local, loving,
> concerned, fatherly government on it and excusing the
> chaos it creates as an inevitable fact of life.
Now you are being very silly indeed. Nothing in your last sentence bears any
resemblence to anything I have ever said. As you well know!
> But hold on -- keep the faith. The overlords will try to do right
> by you next time. You know they love you, and without them,
> we'd have to face life on our own -- which you claim none of
> us can handle.
I have made no such claim - as you well know!
> It took a thousand years to advance western civiliztion to
> the point it is today,
Which is one where vast numbers of children live in poverty across the world,
and where many parents fail to support their children (in any sense of
"support").
> and in less than a generation corruption such as
> yours will cause its decline.
I hope that serious analysis will continue to achieve the objectives of child
support across the world and through the centuries:
- To reduce child poverty.
- To reduce welfare spending.
THAT is what this topic is about. Which of those objectives do you disagree
with?
On 1st November I will have uploaded to my web site the first results from my
long-term projects to describe child support system across the world, and the
history of child support across the world. (Then in subsequent months I will
update it).
Among other material, this will show how the UK's child support has evolved over
the last 4 centuries, and the USA's child support has evolved over the last 2
centuries.
It will be clear that the primary objectives throughout have been what I said
above:
- To reduce child poverty.
- To reduce welfare spending.
RogerFGay
>
> No. If you tell the truth, I will agree with you. But every time I detect you
> departing from the truth, I WILL respond with facts.
>
You're responding with arguments in favor of the international
socialist approach. That's a far cry from "truth" and "facts." It's an
extreme political position. No matter whether you're able to fool
people by dodging back and forth for your expressed support for
internationalism / nationalism, it's obvious how far you are from
respect for the individual and human rights. Your world is the world
of bureacracy; as though life can't possibly exist without it. You
keep asking us to accept that more bureacracy and more powerful
bureacracy equates to a higher quality of life. You'll keep telling us
that it's the truth that we can't live acceptable lives without having
bureacrats tell us how to live and forcing us into a centrally planned
mode of existence. Facts Barry? If that's fact for you, check into an
institution, sign your power of attorney over to trusted relatives.
Don't try to take the rest of us with you. That's a threat, and war
would be a legitimate response if you get far enough with it.
Barry Pearson
news:<1T_s9.8307$pe3....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> >
> > No. If you tell the truth, I will agree with you. But every time I
> > detect you departing from the truth, I WILL respond with facts.
>
> You're responding with arguments in favor of the international
> socialist approach.
No I'm not. I defy you to provide evidence for that statement. You are simply
fantasising things I've said for reasons best known to yourself. Go read what I
REALLY said!
> That's a far cry from "truth" and "facts."
I'm simply stating facts. There is no international conspiracy. There are simple
many countries across the world trying, in their own various ways, to reduce
child poverty while keeping their welfare budgets under control. They've been
trying to achieve this for centuries, changing their methods under different
society & economic & political (and technical) pressures, and no doubt they will
continue to try.
The poor laws of the 17th and 18th centuries tended to require that the lone
parent with child was destitute before getting help, and then would push the
other parent towards poverty if necessary to reduce the cost to the community.
During the 19th century the USA courts developed a scheme of child support that
would last for decades. Then the USA tried to reduce AFDC spend by getting money
off the other parent. Perhaps the next trend, with TANF replacing AFDC, will be
to speed up compliance before the TANF expires. A gradual evolution of the
community/state helping a lone parent then reducing the spend by claiming off
the other parent.
> It's an extreme political position.
I haven't stated any extreme political position. I am simply analysing the
nature of child support across the world and across the centuries, and reporting
what I find. Then going on to see what the solutions might be for the 21st
Century.
YOU are the one who has been exprssing extreme political positions, as follows:
"Child support reforms have been about changing the system generally, from one
with individual rights / i.e. human rights and essential freedom from government
control and manipulation, to one in which the individual is dead and only a
centrally controlling, exercising unlimited arbitrary power matters";
"Somebody is murdering the western world";
"These policies that we're discussing were well developed in the communist world
and they were imported to the west";
"The problem is that you have expressed no concern for the fall of western
civilization";
"Did you know that communism, in the minds of Marxist communists, is the perfect
democracy? It's pure democracy, and pure democracy sucks. It's one of the most
unstable, inhuman, and oppressive systems ever invented";
"There is no mechanism in "democracy" itself for protection of individual rights
and freedom";
"My mathematics of child support is the best and most advanced in the known
universe";
"You reject the western rule of law and are obviously working toward
international socialist rule";
"You reject the western rule of law. Look at what that's done for countries
outside of the west. Once you're outside the US and Western Europe (go a little
farther east) you'll find burning homes and bombed out buildings as the direct
result of raw group politics. You'll find (socialist) systems that exploit group
politics, intensify conflict, and then use one group to hold another in check.
You'll find rule by religous sects and pseudo-religous war-lords related to
oppression and eternal war. You'll find poverty and lack of progress of all
kinds";
"The problem is that western civilization has been abandoned due to corruption";
"But I can tell you that I first identified the link to the socialist movement
and propaganda in the early 1990s, long long before this encounter and before
I'd ever heard of Barry Pearson. Since then I've identified many of the people
involved, some of the international organizations they belong to and even
confirmed Soviet Russian law as the origin";
"Barry's told us flat out that his agenda is to push internationalism (while its
still heavily influenced by the Marxist left)";
"We're all discussing the effects of exactly the same international conspiracy
to eliminate basic rights and establish the policies of an international
dictatorship";
"We disagree with you that the west should be decoupled from its liberal roots
altogether in favor of dictatorships controlled by an international
organization. We disagree with you that Marxist socialism should rise again in
the West after falling in the Soviet Union and elsewhere";
"I suggest that you've already tried nationalism to help sell your extremist
socialist political views. National Socialism, as we know, went by the name
Naziism."
What you don't do, of course, is support those extreme claims with evidence.
Which would be hard!
> No matter whether you're able to fool
> people by dodging back and forth for your expressed support
> for internationalism / nationalism, it's obvious how far you are
> from respect for the individual and human rights.
I pursue the need to get a balanced set of rights & responsibilities among all
the stakeholders involved in child support. That is key to the solutions I seek.
> Your world is the world
> of bureacracy; as though life can't possibly exist without it. You
> keep asking us to accept that more bureacracy and more
> powerful bureacracy equates to a higher quality of life.
No I don't. But I certainly don't believe that the level of litigation that
occurs in the USA is a necessary feature of Western civilisation. It is a style
that may work in the USA - are all USA citizens posting here satisfied with the
quantity & quality of the litigation in the USA? - but I believe the vast
majority of countries in the world will want to avoid this level. I have read
that although the USA has less that 5% of the world's population, it has 70% of
the world's lawyers and 94% of the world's lawsuits. Do things HAVE to be like
that in a Western civilisation? NO!
> You'll keep telling us
> that it's the truth that we can't live acceptable lives without
> having bureacrats tell us how to live and forcing us into a
> centrally planned mode of existence.
No I won't. But neither do I believe that out lives should be based on the whims
of courts & judges to the extent that occurs in the USA.
I note that a certain Roger Gay is trying to get states to adopt HIS PICSLT
approach - isn't that a form of centrally-planned existence? I wonder if he
would force them to use it if he could?
> Facts Barry? If that's fact for you, check into an
> institution, sign your power of attorney over to trusted relatives.
I think that may a sensible thing for you to do, given your above statements!
> Don't try to take the rest of us with you. That's a threat, and war
> would be a legitimate response if you get far enough with it.
Are you threatening me? Are you threatening war? Isn't that a somewhat extreme
political position for you to take?
Do you post those extreme statements with a smile on your face, or are you
serious?
Freedom
child
>support across the world and through the centuries:
>- To reduce child poverty.
>- To reduce welfare spending.
Good causes, and I applaud you for pursuing them. The problem however, is
that in hasty pursuit of these objectives, horrible things have happened to
our legal and family structures. The constitution has been thrown out for
the "NCP". To reduce poverty and STOP/REPLACE welfare spending does not
take the huge "guideline" amounts (LIFESTYLE amounts) that ruin fathers
(mostly) in this country and push many to suicide, murder and other various
horrible places in between. In the end the goverment subsidizes broken
homes (creates an incentive for them by empowering the female far beyond
what nature intended).
Is this good for the kids (and countries) you profess to save?
Barry Pearson
news:fgGt9.4530$iV1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Barry Pearson wrote ...
{snip]
> >I hope that serious analysis will continue to achieve the
> >objectives of child support across the world and through
> >the centuries:
> >- To reduce child poverty.
> >- To reduce welfare spending.
>
> Good causes, and I applaud you for pursuing them. The problem
> however, is that in hasty pursuit of these objectives, horrible things
> have happened to our legal and family structures. The constitution
> has been thrown out for the "NCP".
Has it? I doubt it.
I live in the UK, so what you say doesn't apply. But I'm not convinced it
applies in the USA (or elsewhere) either.
There was a "liability to maintain" of a form, as early as 1601 in England:
An Acte for the Reliefe of the Poore (section VII)
I believe that the USA "inherited" the poor laws both before and after 1776, and
for a long time after 1776 they continued to apply. They weren't the same as the
current laws. What appeared to be the law is that destitute people who couldn't
support themselves were supported by the parrish, and the parrish claimed back
from the relatives of the destitute person.
This continued (with a conversion of "parrish") in the 19th Century in the USA.
There is dispute about the degree to which the English poor laws applied in 19th
Century USA, but courts at that time acted in a similar manner, and developed a
judicial form of child support.
I have seen a number of texts arguing that child support is unconstitutional. I
can understand an argument that the federal government of the USA has limited
powers about child support, but that doesn't mean that states can't legislate to
impose child support. And they have done.
> To reduce poverty and STOP/REPLACE welfare spending does
> not take the huge "guideline" amounts (LIFESTYLE amounts)
> that ruin fathers (mostly) in this country and push many to suicide,
> murder and other various horrible places in between.
Again, that doesn't apply to the UK. The cap for one child is about £160 per
week - about $260 per week. That is not excessive.
But is it the federal government that sets the "huge" guideline amounts? Or is
the individual states? And if the states do it, is it then unconstitutional?
When I hear people complain about the amounts, I first examine researched costs
of raising children. And, in the UK, the vast majority of CSA assessments are
less than even the lower amounts indicated for raising children.
> In the end the goverment subsidizes broken homes (creates an
> incentive for them by empowering the female far beyond
> what nature intended).
To what extent did nature intend to empower the female? The very concept of
nature having any such intent is just too silly for words! Nature has NO intent.
Humans evolved, we are here, and what we do is up to us.
Child support in the UK is not an incentive for broken homes - it is too small.
And since the UK's Child Support Agency was created, the divorce rate has
reduced.
> Is this good for the kids (and countries) you profess to save?
The consequences you state don't apply, certainly in the UK and possibly
elsewhere. I believe the following objectives are worth pursuing:
- To reduce child poverty.
- To reduce welfare spending.
--
Kenneth S.
politicians and judges do in this context, things WILL find their own
level. You can no more stop this than you can repeal the law of
gravity. The only real question is whether the process will create a
situation that people want.
Eventually young men will get to know about things like "child
support," the glass ceiling on paternal custody, the fact that wives
(not husbands) typically initiate divorce, and community property laws
that split property without regard to whose efforts created the wealth.
Dissemination of this knowledge is a slow process -- partly because of
the feminist stranglehold on the media in the U.S. However, it will
happen.
When the majority of young men are aware of the situation, what will be
their reaction? I think they will boycott marriage and families. I
think this is already happening in the U.S. It is one factor in the
failure of the native-born U.S. population to replace itself, leaving
the increase in population entirely to immigration and to the much
higher birth rates among immigrant families.
Is this process in the long-term interests of U.S. society,
particularly when it is combined with a very high proportion of
fatherless homes, and all the problems they generate? I don't think so.
It was an Englishman, Samuel Johnson, who said, centuries ago: "Nature
has given women so much power that the law has wisely given them very
little." The last part has changed radically, but not the first.
Bob
We read frequently these days that men "won't commit" to
marriage, and who can blame them. Traditional marriage has been
destroyed by feminist laws. There is no useful marriage for men
any more. My own sons have turned down every young woman who
wanted them, despite the otherwise attractiveness of the women.
More and more men have learned that there is nothing of value for
men in marriage any more. Its not an organized boycott, its just
millions of individual men making decisions to live life in their
own interest. The feminist laws will create another generation
of hurt women.
Bob
Kenneth S.
Western societies that have adopted the post-feminist structure for
marriage and the family have unwittingly ensured that they will lose
their position of power in the world.
Such Western countries are suffering a change in their population
structure, because people are not replacing themselves. Their
populations are aging, and they are becoming heavily reliant on
immigrants for labor. This is very obvious in European countries.
The U.S. is subject to the same factors. However, there are one or two
pockets where the traditional family structure still is strong, notably
the states with large Mormon populations like Utah. I'll bet that, in
those states, the women aren't complaining about the reluctance of men
to marry and aren't pre-occupied with their biological clocks.
The law of unintended consequences is nowhere more obvious than in
government intervention in families.
Freedom
> > however, is that in hasty pursuit of these objectives, horrible things
> > have happened to our legal and family structures. The constitution
> > has been thrown out for the "NCP".
>
> Has it? I doubt it.
It has, the most striking example is the national guidelines are based on
intact homes (not the cost of raising a child), but the amount of money that
"average" parents spend for food, housing, and transportation (the 3 biggest
containing > 90% of child "costs"). I repeat that IS NOT the COST OF
RAISING ACHILD, that is the AMOUNT OF MONEY INTACT FAMILIES CHOOSE TO SPEND
ON AVERAGE. (which are bloated beyond imagination by US analysts).
So, the NCP is given <$600 a month to live on REGARDLESS. (less than
poverty level here in US).
> I have seen a number of texts arguing that child support is
unconstitutional. I
> can understand an argument that the federal government of the USA has
limited
> powers about child support, but that doesn't mean that states can't
legislate to
> impose child support. And they have done.
But the federal guidelines drive the states, and the states get their money
to run their operations from the federal government.
> > To reduce poverty and STOP/REPLACE welfare spending does
> > not take the huge "guideline" amounts (LIFESTYLE amounts)
> > that ruin fathers (mostly) in this country and push many to suicide,
> > murder and other various horrible places in between.
>
> Again, that doesn't apply to the UK. The cap for one child is about £160
per
> week - about $260 per week. That is not excessive.
Is $260 / week enough to cover UK welfare? - I'll bet it easily covers a
MONTH of UK welfare.
It is excessive. It is not the government's right to decide how much above
the COST of raising a child a parent should CHOOSE to spend.
> When I hear people complain about the amounts, I first examine researched
costs
> of raising children. And, in the UK, the vast majority of CSA assessments
are
> less than even the lower amounts indicated for raising children.
Sir, just look at what the government gives to families for "foster
children" as they are called here in US. Cost basis is far, FAR, FAR from
"lifestyle" basis
> > In the end the goverment subsidizes broken homes (creates an
> > incentive for them by empowering the female far beyond
> > what nature intended).
>
> To what extent did nature intend to empower the female? The very concept
of
> nature having any such intent is just too silly for words! Nature has NO
intent.
> Humans evolved, we are here, and what we do is up to us.
I see now why you behave as you do. I am sorry, I won't bother you directly
anymore. I agree it would be impossible to convince you of anything until
you get the "fear of God" in your heart.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise
wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:7
> - To reduce child poverty.
> - To reduce welfare spending.
Its not right in the least to seperate fathers from kids (not for one second
of one day), and then have father's pay excessivly for it - and that's what
the system does. You can deny, rationalize and externalize all you want,
you can be driven by evil, its your life.
Mr.T
wrote:
>In the more general context, there's a strong case for saying that
>Western societies that have adopted the post-feminist structure for
>marriage and the family have unwittingly ensured that they will lose
>their position of power in the world.
>
> Such Western countries are suffering a change in their population
>structure, because people are not replacing themselves. Their
>populations are aging, and they are becoming heavily reliant on
>immigrants for labor. This is very obvious in European countries.
For proof check out the recent UK census results of 2001. The
results were shocking to the statistitions. They expected from births,
deaths and data on migration that the UK population was at least 60
million. It was at the higher end of 58 million. This might not sound
much, but in a country with an aging population needing the young they
found that a million people are 'missing' 800,000 of them young men.
The solution quoted as being needed was one of 3, which were stop men
leaving the country, 2. Make older people work longer, 3. Bring in
foreigners to make up the workforce. None of which are workable. If
you look at another way 2% of the country has left (wonder why 80% are
men?)
>
> The U.S. is subject to the same factors. However, there are one or two
>pockets where the traditional family structure still is strong, notably
>the states with large Mormon populations like Utah. I'll bet that, in
>those states, the women aren't complaining about the reluctance of men
>to marry and aren't pre-occupied with their biological clocks.
The other thing noted in the census survey in the UK was
another worrying thing about the population - the birth rate, again in
an aging population sooner or later there needs to be a lot of young
to replace the old who will soon make up the majority of the
population - in fact it was noted that there are more pensioners than
children in the UK (child = less than 16 years). The birth rate was
given as 1.64, which is not enough to sustain a population - more than
2 is needed - the average used to be 2.4 children
>
> The law of unintended consequences is nowhere more obvious than in
>government intervention in families.
Result = not enough of the younger generation to keep the
older ones as UK state pensions are actually paid out of the current
taxation (not from what people have paid in) -
Solution could be to raise taxes, but with lots already
leaving the UK not really an incentive to stay is it ?
The government needs young men in work (more than it will
admit especially in the future years) but the CSA taking money from
them forcibly is not an incentive either. I might even return when the
new system comes in, but if it goes belly up again - there are another
190 countries to try, and I wouldn't hesitate getting on a plane outta
there (AGAIN)
Mr T
>
>
>
>'snip'ped for brevity
>>
>>
A fool and his money are soon parted.
But where did the fool get all his money ?
Bob
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Actually what is happening is that men are starting to realize that women
> want equality within marriage,
ROFLMAO!!! Women have never wanted equality.
> therefore they've decided that marriage isn't
> something they want if they cannot have the inequality their fathers had.
Yep, men would love to have only a few basic disadvantages and an
occasional advantage. No longer, the advantages are all gone,
just disadvantages are left and a few new ones added.
> There is plenty of free and easy sex out there so they don't have to get
> married to get it. Children are considered liabilities by most men so they
> don't want those... so you're right, there is little reason for most men
> with that sort of attitude to marry.
You're right. There is no reason for men to marry at all under
today's sexist law. And there ae so many women desperate for a
man they have to fuck without any man who wants them.
> If you ask both men and women who are about to marry what they hope their
> marriages are like you will get very different answers. Women want a
> Partner, men want someone to do the things their mother did... and to have
> uncomplicated sex with, that doesn't exist these days for the most part.
Nonsense. Men want relationships and families. Women want
wallets and hot sex. Men don't marry any more because men no
longer get relationships and families, just payments.
> I think it's fabulous that some men are realizing that if they want to get
> married they're going to have to be adult, equal partners in the marriage
> and in regards to parenting.... and then possibly deciding against doing it
> so young, that's great, that's wonderful! I wish more men my age would have
> done that years ago.
What is your age anyway. Most men would love to be equal
partners in parenting, but women and feminst courts have stolen
their children. Fortunately more and more young men are telling
today's fembot women to take a hike. Most of today's young women
are rightfully blaming it on the sorry for the old tired feminst
dogs who created all the animosity in the society.
> You cannot get married and still do your own thing
> anymore, if you're a man.
Yep, If your a man under today's law you can't get married and
have a family and a relationship with a woman. All most men get
is heartache and loneliness combined with twenty years of
indentured service.
> Women never could, so little has changed there, so
> that is how you know that the reason there are more divorces is because
> women are demanding the equal partner, and/or because men want to marry
> someone like their mother and once they get married realize that isn't going
> to happen.
Poppycock. Women are divorcing because they can take the
children, the house, the car, the bank account, force him into
indentured service, and run off with the latest fantasy stud she
met, all on his money.
> On a side note it's not just young men who don't want to marry any longer.
> My oldest daughter does not want to ever marry. She wants to be artificially
> inseminated some day in order to be a mother, but she does not want to be a
> wife UNLESS that term can be redefined the same by both men and women.
> SLW
Whatever your daughter says, many million young women are
complaining in all the popular media about men not wanting to
marry. Its obvious to see where she got her misandry. She
doesn't deserve a man until she learns to be a good partner, and
no child deserves her as a single mom either.
Bob
John Jones
"SLW" <sl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CJWv9.3828$Ik6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Statistics speak otherwise. Most women do not remarry after
divorce,
> although men do, and usually pretty quickly.
Which statistics say that?
>
> I agree there are some women out there who are exactly as you
describe, but
> statistically it is just not so.
Which statistics say that?
John Jones
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Actually what is happening is that men are starting to realize
that women
marriage isn't
> something they want if they cannot have the inequality their
fathers had.
Actually, men are starting to realize that the deck is stacked
against them in family court.
> There is plenty of free and easy sex out there so they don't
have to get
> married to get it. Children are considered liabilities by most
men so they
> don't want those...
Actually, children are considered the woman's property by the
family court system, and women hold the mans kids hostage to
extort money from him.
> so you're right, there is little reason for most men
> with that sort of attitude to marry.
No you're wrong, there is little reason for most men to marry as
long as women with your attitude are out there.
>
> If you ask both men and women who are about to marry what they
hope their
> marriages are like you will get very different answers. Women
want a
> Partner, men want someone to do the things their mother did...
and to have
> uncomplicated sex with, that doesn't exist these days for the
most part.
No most men don't want a mother, they want a partner, whereas
women want a 'project'. Most men go into a marriage hoping a his
wife will never change. Most women go into a marriage hoping her
husband will. Both are dissappointed.
>
> I think it's fabulous that some men are realizing that if they
want to get
> married they're going to have to be adult, equal partners in
the marriage
> and in regards to parenting....
Men already realize that to a greater extent than women.
> and then possibly deciding against doing it
> so young, that's great, that's wonderful! I wish more men my
age would have
> done that years ago. You cannot get married and still do your
own thing
> anymore, if you're a man.
But you can if you're a woman.
> Women never could, so little has changed there, so
> that is how you know that the reason there are more divorces is
because
> women are demanding the equal partner, and/or because men want
to marry
> someone like their mother and once they get married realize
that isn't going
> to happen.
No, the reason the divorce rate has increased is because more and
more married girls get bored at playing house and decide to trash
the marriage, the family, and the kids and go play something
else for a while.
>
> On a side note it's not just young men who don't want to marry
any longer.
> My oldest daughter does not want to ever marry. She wants to be
artificially
> inseminated some day in order to be a mother, but she does not
want to be a
> wife UNLESS that term can be redefined the same by both men and
women.
Well gee, that one single personal anecdote devastates any notion
about widespread trends. If girls don't want to get married
anymore, explain the abundance of Modern Bride type magazines and
the absence of Modern Groom
>
> SLW
>
> "Bob" <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3DBD7476...@hotmail.com...
Bob
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Statistics speak otherwise. Most women do not remarry after divorce,
> although men do, and usually pretty quickly.
Right. More men marry than women. Another failure to grasp the
concept. You do have a problem adding 1 and 1 and getting 2
don't you.
> I agree there are some women out there who are exactly as you describe, but
> statistically it is just not so.
Nonsense, there are lots of women like that. It now happens to
the majority of men who marry.
>>Poppycock. Women are divorcing because they can take the
>>children, the house, the car, the bank account, force him into
>>indentured service, and run off with the latest fantasy stud she
>>met, all on his money.
Bob
Bob
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> More men REmarry after divorce than women do. Remarry. Not marry.
And these men pull women out of their hat to marry. Sure, right.
You remind me of "The Most Accurate Sex Survey Ever" which stated
that married men have more sex with their wives than married
women have with their husbands. 2 equal 1 plus 1 no matter how
you slice it.
Bob
>
>
> "Bob" <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3DC03ABE...@hotmail.com...
John Jones
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> More men REmarry after divorce than women do. Remarry. Not
marry.
Well, I have heard more women than men complain about the
difficulty of finding mates, but the difference is not that
great - 65% of women vs 75% of men remarry.
>
>
> "Bob" <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3DC03ABE...@hotmail.com...
SLW
SLW
any women who do. But, maybe that is because I don't want to? haha
"John Jones" <enuf...@nothanks.invalid> wrote in message
news:fDXv9.87523$VQ2.18...@twister.midsouth.rr.com...
John Jones
> Personally I've never had trouble finding a man to marry and I
don't know
> any women who do. But, maybe that is because I don't want to?
haha
So your statement was based on your personal experience. I see.
Please reconcile that with your earlier claim: "Statistics speak
John Jones
> Personally I've never had trouble finding a man to marry and I
don't know
> any women who do. But, maybe that is because I don't want to?
haha
You don't want to know any women who have trouble finding a man
to marry? #%^D
John Jones
>
>
> In that case both my experience and statistics prove that men
marry more
> often and faster than women after divorce.
In what case? You haven't provided any statistics, and your
personal anecdotes demonstrate little. Nothing you have
presented supports your claim that "Most women do not remarry
after divorce, although men do, and usually pretty quickly."
You have failed to support these and the other claims you have
made today regarding divorce, though you have had the
opportunity. The astute, if casual observer would conclude that
you cannot support your statements.
>
> SLW
> "John Jones" <enuf...@nothanks.invalid> wrote in message
> news:HOYv9.87527$VQ2.18...@twister.midsouth.rr.com...
Bob
> "SLW" <sl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:dEYv9.3983$Ik6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>Personally I've never had trouble finding a man to marry and I
>>
> don't know
>
>>any women who do. But, maybe that is because I don't want to?
>>
> haha
>
> You don't want to know any women who have trouble finding a man
> to marry? #%^D
Funny, I doubt she ever went looking for women who want to find a
man to marry, and I doubt that any of those women were looking
for her. Personally I've been found by several, and I can assure
you that most of them had difficulty, ran off screaming as often
as not.
Bob
SLW
them yourself. They exist. I'm simply engaging in conversation.
"John Jones" <enuf...@nothanks.invalid> wrote in message
John Jones
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
> A lot of men like to think we women want nothing more than to
get married
No they don't
> but it's just not true. Sure, there are many who do, but not
most.
>
> None of my single custodial parent friends, male or female,
want to marry
> again.
They don't count.
>
> slw
>
> "Bob" <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3DC0765D...@hotmail.com...
Phil#3
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Actually what is happening is that men are starting to realize that women
> want equality within marriage, therefore they've decided that marriage
isn't
> something they want if they cannot have the inequality their fathers had.
> married to get it. Children are considered liabilities by most men so they
> with that sort of attitude to marry.
>
Divorcing women do *NOT* want equality in any shape, form or size.
They refuse to give back any of the discriminatory privledges granted to
women in the past, especially those of the past 13 years.
> If you ask both men and women who are about to marry what they hope their
> marriages are like you will get very different answers. Women want a
> Partner, men want someone to do the things their mother did... and to have
> uncomplicated sex with, that doesn't exist these days for the most part.
>
This, according to whom, exactly?
> I think it's fabulous that some men are realizing that if they want to get
> married they're going to have to be adult, equal partners in the marriage
> and in regards to parenting....
Equality only exists in a marriage if the wife allows it. Some do, most do
not, IMO.
>and then possibly deciding against doing it
> so young, that's great, that's wonderful! I wish more men my age would
have
> done that years ago. You cannot get married and still do your own thing
> anymore, if you're a man. Women never could, so little has changed there,
so
> that is how you know that the reason there are more divorces is because
> women are demanding the equal partner, and/or because men want to marry
> someone like their mother and once they get married realize that isn't
going
> to happen.
According to the studies I have read, women primarily divorce because of her
"feelings", nothing more; certainly nothing about equality. Of course if
your 'source' is Cosmo, National Enquirer or N.O.W., you'd disagree.
>
> On a side note it's not just young men who don't want to marry any longer.
> My oldest daughter does not want to ever marry. She wants to be
artificially
> inseminated some day in order to be a mother, but she does not want to be
a
> wife UNLESS that term can be redefined the same by both men and women.
>
I wonder what the terms of this "redefined" marriage would be...
I also wonder who she expect to foot the bill for her choice to place a
child in this situation that research has shown to be very likely to result
in problem children.
--
Moral character should not be measured so much by how well we act, but more
from why we act well.
Phil #3
> SLW
>
> "Bob" <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3DBD7476...@hotmail.com...
John Jones
> This isn't a master's program, it's a message group, if you
want stats find
> them yourself.
Stop appealing to statistics you can't produce, or be recognized
as a liar.
> They exist. I'm simply engaging in conversation.
You're making unsubstantiated claims you cannot support, liar.
Kenneth S.
However, even if her anti-male explanation is correct, the bottom line
is the same.
In Western societies, women increasingly will find it difficult to find
men to marry them, because men will realize that marriage has little to
offer them, by comparison with staying single. They will realize that
the balance of power in marriage and divorce has changed, by comparison
with what their fathers faced.
For the current generation of men, there is a major downside risk that
marriage will, after a few years, put them in a situation where they
have been expelled from their families, but are forced to pay their
ex-wives major amounts of money, via so-called "child support" -- for
periods that may be as long as two decades.
If we don't want to have a high proportion of children growing up in
fatherless families and large numbers of alienated men, then we'd better
start thinking about removing the current incentives for wives to break
up their families.
Of course, some women may want to focus on the immediate advantages to
them of the present situation. They can expel their husbands at will,
keep custody of the children, get control of at least half the assets,
and force their husbands to subsidize them for decades. However, in the
long term women too suffer from the social disruption that arises from
family breakdowns.
SLW wrote:
>
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Actually what is happening is that men are starting to realize that women
> want equality within marriage, therefore they've decided that marriage isn't
> something they want if they cannot have the inequality their fathers had.
> There is plenty of free and easy sex out there so they don't have to get
> married to get it. Children are considered liabilities by most men so they
> don't want those... so you're right, there is little reason for most men
> with that sort of attitude to marry.
>
> If you ask both men and women who are about to marry what they hope their
> marriages are like you will get very different answers. Women want a
> Partner, men want someone to do the things their mother did... and to have
> uncomplicated sex with, that doesn't exist these days for the most part.
>
> I think it's fabulous that some men are realizing that if they want to get
> married they're going to have to be adult, equal partners in the marriage
> and in regards to parenting.... and then possibly deciding against doing it
> so young, that's great, that's wonderful! I wish more men my age would have
> done that years ago. You cannot get married and still do your own thing
> anymore, if you're a man. Women never could, so little has changed there, so
> that is how you know that the reason there are more divorces is because
> women are demanding the equal partner, and/or because men want to marry
> someone like their mother and once they get married realize that isn't going
> to happen.
>
> On a side note it's not just young men who don't want to marry any longer.
> My oldest daughter does not want to ever marry. She wants to be artificially
> inseminated some day in order to be a mother, but she does not want to be a
> wife UNLESS that term can be redefined the same by both men and women.
>
> SLW
>
> "Bob" <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3DBD7476...@hotmail.com...
Bob
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
> A lot of men like to think we women want nothing more than to get married
> but it's just not true. Sure, there are many who do, but not most.
> None of my single custodial parent friends, male or female, want to marry
> again.
> slw
Yea, I know a bunch of gay and lesbian folks too.
Bob
>
> "Bob" <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3DC0765D...@hotmail.com...
Barry Pearson
> > > Good causes, and I applaud you for pursuing them. The problem
> > > however, is that in hasty pursuit of these objectives, horrible things
> > > have happened to our legal and family structures. The constitution
> > > has been thrown out for the "NCP".
> >
> > Has it? I doubt it.
>
> It has, the most striking example is the national guidelines are based on
> intact homes (not the cost of raising a child), but the amount of money that
> "average" parents spend for food, housing, and transportation (the 3 biggest
> containing > 90% of child "costs"). I repeat that IS NOT the COST OF
> RAISING ACHILD, that is the AMOUNT OF MONEY INTACT
> FAMILIES CHOOSE TO SPEND
> ON AVERAGE. (which are bloated beyond imagination by US analysts).
But that doesn't address my point - has the constitution been thrown out? What
part of the constitution has been thrown out? I assume that something isn't
unconstitutional just because some people don't like it. (In the UK, people
often talk about their human rights being violated - but they often they can't
identify the rights that they assert are being violated. They just mean "I don't
like this, there ought to be be a law against it"). This point matters, if you
want to change things rather than just moan about them.
[snip]
> > Again, that doesn't apply to the UK. The cap for one child is about
> > Ł160 per week - about $260 per week. That is not excessive.
>
> Is $260 / week enough to cover UK welfare? - I'll bet it easily
> covers a MONTH of UK welfare.
No. I did an analysis of this at the following URL. Assume about 1.5 or 1.6 $US
to the ŁUK.
"What the government is prepared to pay for children in benefits & tax credits"
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/cost_of_children/cost
_of_children_in_benefits_and_tax_credits.htm
Note - hardly anyone pays the "cap" amount. Most people pay much less than the
researched cost of raising a child. The mean liability per child is about $22 or
so per week. Another cap is 30% of net income - both caps apply.
> It is excessive. It is not the government's right to decide how much
> above the COST of raising a child a parent should CHOOSE to spend.
I have a lot of material about researched costs of raising children in the UK,
and typical costs are higher than people want to believe. Here are some pages:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/cost_of_children/cost
_of_children_summary.htm
> > When I hear people complain about the amounts, I first examine researched
> > costs of raising children. And, in the UK, the vast majority of CSA
> > assessments are less than even the lower amounts indicated for raising
> > children.
>
> Sir, just look at what the government gives to families for "foster
> children" as they are called here in US. Cost basis is far, FAR,
> FAR from "lifestyle" basis
I covered this in an earlier post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=DsDg9.9181$7x3.3...@newsfep2-win.ser
ver.ntli.net
The payment for fostering is in the same broad range as the researched costs -
perhaps a little lower for young children, and rather higher for older children.
Adding up all the components brings it well up to the cap I mentioned earlier
for older children. The majority of child support liabilities are well under
typical fostering payments.
> > > In the end the goverment subsidizes broken homes (creates an
> > > incentive for them by empowering the female far beyond
> > > what nature intended).
> >
> > To what extent did nature intend to empower the female? The very
> > concept of nature having any such intent is just too silly for words!
> > Nature has NO intent.
> > Humans evolved, we are here, and what we do is up to us.
>
> I see now why you behave as you do. I am sorry, I won't bother you
> directly anymore. I agree it would be impossible to convince you of
> anything until you get the "fear of God" in your heart.
I'm an atheist. I believe there are no gods.
[snip]
> Its not right in the least to seperate fathers from kids (not for one second
> of one day), and then have father's pay excessivly for it - and that's what
> the system does. You can deny, rationalize and externalize all you want,
> you can be driven by evil, its your life.
I'm not in favour of separating fathers from children - I am a member of
Families Need Fathers, and I have worked with them to propose better child
support rules to the government.
I'm in the solution business, not the debating or moaning business.
Mr. F. Le Mur
<ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
->But that doesn't address my point - has the constitution been thrown out? What
Yes.
->part of the constitution has been thrown out? I assume that something isn't
Most of it.
"Child support" at the federal level is written and implemented as
additions to the "Social Security Act of 1935," which itself is
unconstitutional. "Child support" laws at the state level were
implemented under threats of withholding federal welfare funding
(also under the SSA).
The SS website itself has a rather involved description of why SS
is illegal and how the fed gov't got around that fact. Here's a
small portion of that:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
The constitutional basis of the Social Security Act was uncertain. The
basic problem is that under the "reserve clause" of the Constitution (the
10th Amendment) powers not specifically granted to the federal government
are reserved for the States or the people. When the federal government
seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in
the Constitution to justify its action. Obviously, the Constitution did
not specifically mention the operation of a social insurance system as
a power granted to the federal government!
(Therefore SS is uncosntitutional)
[...]
A President Tries to Pack a Court-
In early 1937 President Roosevelt made what turned out to be the biggest
political blunder of his career, and yet it was a blunder that would
have fortuitous, even pivotal, importance for the fate of Social Security.
Federal judges are appointed for life. The Supreme Court of the 1930s
was the most elderly in the history of the Republic, with an average age
of over 71. President Roosevelt would derisively refer to them as "those
nine old men." Actually, he only had four of them in mind. The Court was
split down the middle in political terms.
On the liberal side were three justices sympathetic to the New Deal
programs (Brandeis, Stone and Cardozo); on the conservative side were
four justices who voted against everything the Congress and the
Administration tried to do (McReynolds, Butler, Van Devanter and Sutherland).
In the middle were Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Owen
Roberts, who were often "swing votes" on many issues. In the spring of
1935 Justice Roberts joined with the conservatives to invalidate the
Railroad Retirement Act. In May, the Court threw out a centerpiece of the
New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act. In January 1936 a passionately
split Court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Act unconstitutional. In
another case from 1936 the Court ruled New York state's minimum wage law
unconstitutional. The upshot was that major social and political reforms,
(Note: minimum wage laws are unconstitutional)
including social insurance programs, appeared headed for defeat. This
despite the obvious will of the electorate who returned Roosevelt to office
in 1936 with the largest landslide in history.
President Roosevelt's response to all of this was stunning and unexpected.
On February 5, 1937 he sent a special message to Congress proposing
legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges
to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older
who refused to retire. Couching his argument as a reform to help relieve
the workload burden on the courts, President Roosevelt's unusually blunt
language made it clear what he really had in mind: "A part of the problem
of obtaining a sufficient number of judges to dispose of cases is the
...blah blah blah...cease to explore or inquire into the present or the
future." 3
The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get
to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower
federal courts) thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court
dramatically in his favor. The debate on this proposal was heated, widespread
and over in six months. The President would be decisively rebuffed, his
reputation in history tarnished for all time. But the Court, it seemed,
got the message and suddenly shifted its course. Beginning with a set of
decisions in March, April and May 1937 (including the Social Security Act
cases) the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation, producing
a "constitutional revolution in the age of Roosevelt." 4
Ta da!
Kenneth S.
three factors in the context of whether or not something is
unconstitutional or not:
(1) Some actions of government can be be transparently unconstitutional,
but they will continue in full operation until they are challenged in
court, and a court -- particularly the U.S. Supreme Court -- has ruled
them to be unconstitutional. If a group that is adversely affected by
these actions does not have the resources to bring a court challenge,
the actions will continue.
(2) Even if a court challenge IS brought, the U.S. Supreme Court has an
entirely free hand in deciding whether or not to review the case. If
Supreme Court justices don't want to tackle a hot potato case, they will
simply refuse to review it, without explanation. Thus, recently, the
U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the electoral situation in New
Jersey, where Torricelli withdrew as Democratic Senate candidate, after
the deadline for putting forward a different candidate had passed. He
was under pressure from the Democratic party because they might lose
control of the U.S. Senate as a result of Torricelli's defeat. Despite
the deadline, the N.J. courts allowed the Democrats to say that
Lautenberg was their candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court simply refused
to review the case, thus leaving the N.J. decision to stand. No doubt,
after all the heat they took on the last presidential election, the
Supremes opted for an easy life.
(3) Most difficult of all, what is or is not unconstitutional is
determined solely by the U.S. Supreme Court justices, and there is no
appeal from their decision (except to a later Supreme Court). Many
people, me included, think the Supreme Court has made a complete and
utter mockery of the U.S. constitution. Justices go with their gut
feelings, and then find some absurd linkage to the wording of the
constitution. (Sometimes, they don't even do that, as when they talk
about "evolving social standards," and even bring in other countries'
views, in the context of the death penalty.) There are clear
indications that the Supreme Court reacts to special interest groups and
behaves like a bunch of unelected politicians. Public opinion polls and
riots in the streets have much more effect on Supreme Court decisions
than anything that was written in the U.S. constitution more than 200
years ago. For quite a few years, the motto of the U.S. Supreme Court
has been: "If it feels good, rule it!"
If fathers' groups were politically influential, and could muster huge
crowds on the steps of the Supreme Court, I can guarantee that all kinds
of things would be found in the U.S. constitution that previously had
been invisible to the Supreme Court justices.
Mr. F. Le Mur
->For people outside the U.S., it's helpful to understand the following
->three factors in the context of whether or not something is
->unconstitutional or not:
->
->(1) Some actions of government can be be transparently unconstitutional,
->but they will continue in full operation until they are challenged in
->court, and a court -- particularly the U.S. Supreme Court -- has ruled
Keep in mind that the SC gave itself that power in Marbury v Madison.
->them to be unconstitutional. If a group that is adversely affected by
->these actions does not have the resources to bring a court challenge,
->the actions will continue.
The actions and programs also continue even after they've been declared
uncontitutional - "Affirmative Action" is a good example.
->
->(2) Even if a court challenge IS brought, the U.S. Supreme Court has an
->entirely free hand in deciding whether or not to review the case. If
->Supreme Court justices don't want to tackle a hot potato case, they will
->simply refuse to review it, without explanation. Thus, recently, the
Also: almost all decisions are split decisions; all SC appointments
are based on political affiliation, not legal expertise.
->U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the electoral situation in New
->Jersey, where Torricelli withdrew as Democratic Senate candidate, after
->the deadline for putting forward a different candidate had passed. He
->was under pressure from the Democratic party because they might lose
->control of the U.S. Senate as a result of Torricelli's defeat. Despite
->the deadline, the N.J. courts allowed the Democrats to say that
->Lautenberg was their candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court simply refused
->to review the case, thus leaving the N.J. decision to stand. No doubt,
->after all the heat they took on the last presidential election, the
->Supremes opted for an easy life.
->
->(3) Most difficult of all, what is or is not unconstitutional is
->determined solely by the U.S. Supreme Court justices, and there is no
->appeal from their decision (except to a later Supreme Court). Many
->people, me included, think the Supreme Court has made a complete and
->utter mockery of the U.S. constitution. Justices go with their gut
I agree. For the most part the US constitution is striaght-forward
and easy to understand; the SC goes through some amazing gyrations
to justify many of their decisions.
George Thompson
John Jones
Hi George,
Is there some reason you re-posted this entire 175 line message
with no comments?
"George Thompson" <jrbo...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote in message
news:3DC193BD...@unity.ncsu.edu...
paul baird
I'm a single father. I was granted residence of the children i.e. I am the
'Parent with care'. I am happily divorced and I have absolutely no wish to
ever get married again. I am happy, though, to have less formal
relationships with women (and no I do not mean the sort that you pay for).
Men need women as much or as little as women need men. The current
difficulties seem to arise from a realignment of the expectations of each
from not just marriage but also any relationship. I'm only in favour of
marriage in terms of the 'legitimacy' that it gives a child, and the rights
that it gives a father - otherwise I think that you can spend the money that
the wedding day cost on a far better day out elsewhere and save the
heartache and hypocrisy.
"Kenneth S." <nim...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3DC09D...@erols.com...
Barry Pearson
news:j3d2sus31fktiq9rg...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:21:31 -0000, "Barry Pearson"
> <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ->But that doesn't address my point - has the constitution been thrown out?
>
> Yes.
>
> ->part of the constitution has been thrown out? I assume that something
>
> Most of it.
>
> "Child support" at the federal level is written and implemented as
> additions to the "Social Security Act of 1935," which itself is
> unconstitutional. "Child support" laws at the state level were
> implemented under threats of withholding federal welfare funding
> (also under the SSA).
But does that make the current state laws unconstitutional?
I said later in that article:
"I have seen a number of texts arguing that child support is unconstitutional. I
can understand an argument that the federal government of the USA has limited
powers about child support, but that doesn't mean that states can't legislate to
impose child support."
This matters if someone is trying to change things. For example, it could be
imagined that some means may be found to reverse unconstitutional federal laws
(if indeed they are that). But that would surely not reverse any state law that
itself was not unconstitutional - it would simply leave the state with more
options about what it did with the law in future, and it would up to the state
to make the change.
My understanding is that (some) states started to implement child support laws
during the 19th Century. At first, this was an extension to civil law, but from
about 1870 or so it started to be treated as an extension to criminal law - in
effect, it became a crime to cause the community or state to have to support a
child by failing to support it oneself.
So, can a state implement child support laws if it chooses to?
Are there constitutional restrictions on what they can do (apart from due
process, etc)? Can they set guidelines (if the state's own laws allow) etc? Are
the amounts restricted by the constitution (apart, perhaps, from "cruel and
unusual punishment")?
Which states would actually want to reverse such laws? I understand that some
have challenged the federal laws, but would they eliminate their current laws or
modify them?
Kenneth S.
issue. In my view it's a mistake to think that what is or is not
"constitutional" in the United States can be precisely defined. It
depends very heavily on politics -- and on the resources of the group
that wishes to argue that some course of action is unconstitutional.
In the first place, the U.S. Supreme Court has complete freedom of
action to decide whether or not it wants to review a decision of a lower
court. If the Supreme Court decides that something is a hot potato that
it doesn't want to touch, it can simply refuse to review the lower
court's decision. The Supreme Court justices will give no reasons for
their decision. In that case, the lower court's decision stands.
Secondly, and more importantly, the whole issue of what is or is not
constitutional has been distorted beyond all recognition by two
factors. One factor is the tendency of the federal government in recent
years to act in ANY area it wants, without regard to the constitutional
division of powers between the federal and state governments. The
federal government simply tells the states, "Yes, this is a matter for
you, and you can, of course, do whatever you want. However, if you
don't do what WE want, we will cut off federal funds to you." Thus,
family law beyond all doubt is a matter for the states. However, the
federal government makes the running whenever it chooses in this area.
It tells the states that, if they don't do what the federal government
wants, they will lose federal welfare funds.
The other factor is the increasing tendency for judges in the U.S.,
including the Supreme Court, to act unlawfully, and pay no attention to
the statute, or the constitution, that they are supposed to be
administering. The Supreme Court is the paramount example in the U.S.
of arbitrary and capricious action. They do what just they want.
Sometimes they find some weird interpretation of the U.S. constitution
to justify their decisions, and sometimes not.
The bottom line is that, until fathers get some political clout, they
have no protections in the U.S. constitution. If fathers HAD some
political clout, miraculously all kinds of protections would be found in
the constitution that, somehow or other, the Supreme Court never saw
before.