advice for child support
xucaen
$1200.00 per month in child support for one child.
This year I am getting married and we are expecting our first child in
september.
My fiance is out of work, and I don't expect her to go back for some
time, so before the end of the year both wife and child will be
dependants.
Is there precedence in Massachusetts for getting child support lowered
under such circumstances? $100.00 per month would help out a great
deal. Should I risk it? Would I need a lawyer?
I look forward to hearing your comments.
Thanks!!
Jim
LLL
>deal. Should I risk it? Would I need a lawyer?
I would consult a lawyer. many offer free or low cost consultations.
OTOH, it could cost you more in legal fees overall than you would save.
Be sure the attorney addresses this.
LLL
Wow!!!! that is a lot more than in my state unless that counts daycare
or some extraordinary expense.
JayR
NCP in MA....shudder.
Dusty
news:1137087753.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I hate to sound like a wet blanket, but I've had to deal with the MA Family
court system. They most likely will INCREASE the amount by your asking for
a reduction. Every time I asked for a reduction, I was handed with an
increase in C$.
So be very careful and seek legal assistance BEFORE you go to court.
Bob Whiteside
"LLL" <LEJORGE...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1137099153....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >$1200.00 per month in child support for one child.
>
>
> Wow!!!! that is a lot more than in my state unless that counts daycare
> or some extraordinary expense.
CP's (and I'm sure LLL is a female CP) have no perspective on how much NCP
men are really ordered to pay in CS, medical insurance, life insurance,
child care expenses, etc.
The $1,200 payment cited is 22.9% of his gross income and that has got to
approach at least 50% or more of his net income after taxes.
When I got divorced my combined payment for CS, SS, medical insurance, and
life insurance took over 34% of my gross income. As a percent of net income
after taxes it took 75%. I only retained $.25 of every dollar I earned.
It just frosts my butt that women claim ONLY 23% of a man's gross income is
not that much. Particularly when taxes take another 40%.
Moon Shyne
"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:FxGxf.2072$ee6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Why would you include your own social security payments, life insurance
payments and your share of your medical insurance payments in with your
child support payments? You using that fuzzy math?
And why would it frost your butt that the woman aren't worried about the
man's taxes on the man's income? Why should that be the woman's concern?
>
>
don_...@hotmail.com
I also live in MA and I pay $13K (down from $21K *wink*) on about $65K
of income.
I also have had now 12 years of rather frequent experience with the
probate system here.
Based on the numbers you provided you are within the guidelines and I
wouldn't bother.
The court is going to say that you had this prior obligation of CS and
your decision for future children is your problem.
The other part to consider is if your ex-wife is able bodied and
working at a reasonable level. I was able to get a significant
reduction by using the law that attributes income as she, as a college
graduate, certified to teach high school and able bodied, was staying
home, living off of my son's child support and waltzed into court
(after discovery) smugly stating that she was earning $0.89 yes that is
89 cents per hour.
The judge was not amused. BTW, women judges at least in Norfolk county
seem less tolerant of situations like this than male judges, imo.
If your ex is earning a reasonable income for her abilities, then I
would just leave it all alone.
BTW, you can do very well on your own in court by paying an attorney to
review your documents and paper-work filing, complaint, modification
requests, etc. but with you still representing yourself. My attorney
who charges about $300/hour for court work, which would have meant
about $5,000 for the modification I achieved, cost me only about $500
for his time. (Plus what I had to pay for an expert witness.)
Don
teachrmama
"Moon Shyne" <moons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ysLxf.36729$7S....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:FxGxf.2072$ee6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "LLL" <LEJORGE...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> news:1137099153....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> >$1200.00 per month in child support for one child.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow!!!! that is a lot more than in my state unless that counts daycare
>>> or some extraordinary expense.
>>
>> CP's (and I'm sure LLL is a female CP) have no perspective on how much
>> NCP
>> men are really ordered to pay in CS, medical insurance, life insurance,
>> child care expenses, etc.
>>
>> The $1,200 payment cited is 22.9% of his gross income and that has got to
>> approach at least 50% or more of his net income after taxes.
>>
>> When I got divorced my combined payment for CS, SS, medical insurance,
>> and
>> life insurance took over 34% of my gross income. As a percent of net
>> income
>> after taxes it took 75%. I only retained $.25 of every dollar I earned.
>>
>> It just frosts my butt that women claim ONLY 23% of a man's gross income
>> is
>> not that much. Particularly when taxes take another 40%.
>
> Why would you include your own social security payments, life insurance
> payments and your share of your medical insurance payments in with your
> child support payments? You using that fuzzy math?
I thought he was saying Spousal Support--not social security.
>
> And why would it frost your butt that the woman aren't worried about the
> man's taxes on the man's income? Why should that be the woman's concern?
Well, to me it is an issue of fairness, Moon. Why *wouldn't* the CP want
there to be fairness--if the NCP earns the money, don't you think the NCP
should have enough left to live decently on? Do you think it is ok that the
NCP ends up taking home only 25 cents out of every dollar he earns?
Bob Whiteside
"Moon Shyne" <moons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ysLxf.36729$7S....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
SS is spousal support. All the items I listed were court ordered in the
divorce decree. Life insurance was ordered to guarantee to payment of CS in
the event of my death.
>
> And why would it frost your butt that the woman aren't worried about the
> man's taxes on the man's income? Why should that be the woman's concern?
Because the women who cite percentages of a man's income do so to make it
sound like the amount paid is a very small amount of a man's gross income.
In fact, many women only cite the CS award amount and leave out the life
insurance, medical insurance, childcare expenses, etc. when they play this
game. They also ignore the facts the man loses his married filing status,
the dependent exemptions, the itemized deductions, and the ability to
qualify for tax credits. All of those tax related items significantly
reduce a man's net income.
P. Fritz
Amy makes a habit of ignoring facts.
>
>
Moon Shyne
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:dq8eg...@news1.newsguy.com...
Still isn't child support though, is it?
>
>>
>> And why would it frost your butt that the woman aren't worried about the
>> man's taxes on the man's income? Why should that be the woman's concern?
>
> Well, to me it is an issue of fairness, Moon. Why *wouldn't* the CP want
> there to be fairness--if the NCP earns the money, don't you think the NCP
> should have enough left to live decently on? Do you think it is ok that
> the NCP ends up taking home only 25 cents out of every dollar he earns?
Not what I said at all, Teach. I was asking Bob why it would frost his butt
that his taxes on his income isn't any one else's concern.
>
>
Moon Shyne
My ex and I were both ordered to carry our life insurance as well - it isn't
limited to the NCP's Bob.
In any event - none of those are child support, are they?
>
>>
>> And why would it frost your butt that the woman aren't worried about the
>> man's taxes on the man's income? Why should that be the woman's concern?
>
> Because the women who cite percentages of a man's income do so to make it
> sound like the amount paid is a very small amount of a man's gross income.
How in the world would you claim to know what someone else's intentions
were?
> In fact, many women only cite the CS award amount and leave out the life
> insurance, medical insurance, childcare expenses, etc. when they play this
> game.
On the other hand, some of us leave it out because WE are the ones paying
for the life insurance, medical insurance, child care expenses etc.
They also ignore the facts the man loses his married filing status,
Doesn't the woman lose her married filing status too?
> the dependent exemptions,
Why would he necessarily lose this? Shoot, the majority of divorced people
I encounter split the exemptions.
the itemized deductions,
Why would being divorced cause him to lose the itemized deductions?
and the ability to
> qualify for tax credits.
Why would being divorced lose the ability to qualify for tax credits, if he
had qualified for them pre-divorce?
All of those tax related items significantly
> reduce a man's net income.
Pretty far stretch to claim that divorce causes him to lose all those
(except for the married filing status, but hey, the woman loses that one,
too)
>
>
Bob Whiteside
Did the court order you to increase your life insurance and set the amount
you had to carry? Did the court tell you who your benficiaries could be?
Did the court tell you what the consequences would be if you didn't follow
the court's order?
>
> In any event - none of those are child support, are they?
That's why I listed them as individual court ordered items rather than
lumping them together and calling them CS.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> And why would it frost your butt that the woman aren't worried about
the
> >> man's taxes on the man's income? Why should that be the woman's
concern?
> >
> > Because the women who cite percentages of a man's income do so to make
it
> > sound like the amount paid is a very small amount of a man's gross
income.
>
> How in the world would you claim to know what someone else's intentions
> were?
The comment I was responding to was about the $1200 CS being a lot. I
pointed out $1200 was 23% of gross income and many court orders far exceed
23% of gross income.
>
>
> > In fact, many women only cite the CS award amount and leave out the life
> > insurance, medical insurance, childcare expenses, etc. when they play
this
> > game.
>
> On the other hand, some of us leave it out because WE are the ones paying
> for the life insurance, medical insurance, child care expenses etc.
>
> They also ignore the facts the man loses his married filing status,
The NCP father goes from married to single filing status.
>
> Doesn't the woman lose her married filing status too?
Yes. But the CP mother goes from married to head of household filing status
which does not change the amount due on her income.
>
>
>
> > the dependent exemptions,
>
> Why would he necessarily lose this? Shoot, the majority of divorced
people
> I encounter split the exemptions.
The default position in IRS tax law is the CP gets the exemptions. If the
NCP gets a split they obvioously give up something else to gain this tax
advantage.
>
>
> the itemized deductions,
>
> Why would being divorced cause him to lose the itemized deductions?
The CP gets the home and with that comes the mortgage interest and property
tax deductions.
>
>
> and the ability to
> > qualify for tax credits.
> Why would being divorced lose the ability to qualify for tax credits, if
he
> had qualified for them pre-divorce?
Tax credits are tied to the exemptions. Loss of exemptions means loss of
tax credits.
>
> All of those tax related items significantly
> > reduce a man's net income.
>
> Pretty far stretch to claim that divorce causes him to lose all those
> (except for the married filing status, but hey, the woman loses that one,
> too)
My federal and state incomes taxes went up $450 per month post-divorce on
the same income. My ex paid zero federal and state taxes because she
retained all the exemptions and deductions and could file head of household.
I considered the extra $450 per month taxes I paid to be hidden alimony.
Moon Shyne
I was already well insured, and yes, the courts said that I had to keep the
pre-divorce levels.
Did the court tell you who your benficiaries could be?
Yes, the children.
> Did the court tell you what the consequences would be if you didn't follow
> the court's order?
There are apparently no consequences, considering that my ex allowed his
insurance to lapse - he has suffered no penalties at all.
>
>>
>> In any event - none of those are child support, are they?
>
> That's why I listed them as individual court ordered items rather than
> lumping them together and calling them CS.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> And why would it frost your butt that the woman aren't worried about
> the
>> >> man's taxes on the man's income? Why should that be the woman's
> concern?
>> >
>> > Because the women who cite percentages of a man's income do so to make
> it
>> > sound like the amount paid is a very small amount of a man's gross
> income.
>>
>> How in the world would you claim to know what someone else's intentions
>> were?
>
> The comment I was responding to was about the $1200 CS being a lot. I
> pointed out $1200 was 23% of gross income and many court orders far exceed
> 23% of gross income.
And many are for less than 23% of gross income.
>
>>
>>
>> > In fact, many women only cite the CS award amount and leave out the
>> > life
>> > insurance, medical insurance, childcare expenses, etc. when they play
> this
>> > game.
>>
>> On the other hand, some of us leave it out because WE are the ones paying
>> for the life insurance, medical insurance, child care expenses etc.
>>
>> They also ignore the facts the man loses his married filing status,
>
> The NCP father goes from married to single filing status.
>
>>
>> Doesn't the woman lose her married filing status too?
>
> Yes. But the CP mother goes from married to head of household filing
> status
> which does not change the amount due on her income.
Always? Because you sure seem to want to make it seem as though this is
ALWAYS the case.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > the dependent exemptions,
>>
>> Why would he necessarily lose this? Shoot, the majority of divorced
> people
>> I encounter split the exemptions.
>
> The default position in IRS tax law is the CP gets the exemptions. If the
> NCP gets a split they obvioously give up something else to gain this tax
> advantage.
Or not - some simply split the exemptions because it's fair.
>
>>
>>
>> the itemized deductions,
>>
>> Why would being divorced cause him to lose the itemized deductions?
>
> The CP gets the home and with that comes the mortgage interest and
> property
> tax deductions.
Even when there's no home, or the home is sold and the proceeds split as
community property? How does that work, Bob?
>
>>
>>
>> and the ability to
>> > qualify for tax credits.
>
>> Why would being divorced lose the ability to qualify for tax credits, if
> he
>> had qualified for them pre-divorce?
>
> Tax credits are tied to the exemptions. Loss of exemptions means loss of
> tax credits.
Try for specificity - which tax credits did the father qualify for, before
divorce, that he no longer qualifies for?
>
>>
>> All of those tax related items significantly
>> > reduce a man's net income.
>>
>> Pretty far stretch to claim that divorce causes him to lose all those
>> (except for the married filing status, but hey, the woman loses that one,
>> too)
>
> My federal and state incomes taxes went up $450 per month post-divorce on
> the same income.
This isn't about you, Bob.
My ex paid zero federal and state taxes because she
> retained all the exemptions and deductions and could file head of
> household.
> I considered the extra $450 per month taxes I paid to be hidden alimony.
This still isn't about you, Bob - anecdotes do not facts make.
>
>
Werebat
Moon Shyne wrote:
> "Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:FxGxf.2072$ee6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>"LLL" <LEJORGE...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>news:1137099153....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>$1200.00 per month in child support for one child.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wow!!!! that is a lot more than in my state unless that counts daycare
>>>or some extraordinary expense.
>>
>>CP's (and I'm sure LLL is a female CP) have no perspective on how much NCP
>>men are really ordered to pay in CS, medical insurance, life insurance,
>>child care expenses, etc.
>>
>>The $1,200 payment cited is 22.9% of his gross income and that has got to
>>approach at least 50% or more of his net income after taxes.
>>
>>When I got divorced my combined payment for CS, SS, medical insurance, and
>>life insurance took over 34% of my gross income. As a percent of net
>>income
>>after taxes it took 75%. I only retained $.25 of every dollar I earned.
>>
>>It just frosts my butt that women claim ONLY 23% of a man's gross income
>>is
>>not that much. Particularly when taxes take another 40%.
>
>
> Why would you include your own social security payments, life insurance
> payments and your share of your medical insurance payments in with your
> child support payments? You using that fuzzy math?
Moon Shyne, I find this post to be annoying.
This is your first warning.
- Ron Poirier ^*^
Moon Shyne
"Werebat" <ranpo...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ssYxf.8239$Dh.2437@dukeread04...
What makes you think I give a rat's ass what you find?
3 guesses what you can do with your warning, moron
>
> - Ron Poirier ^*^
>
Werebat
"Moonshyne", whoever you are, I find this last post of yours which
includes vulgar language and namecalling to be hurtful and annoying. I
am now formally demanding that you identify yourself.
It is bad enough that you openly ridicule the men's movement and its
proponents, but that you do so in such a blatantly hurtful and annoying
way, and behind a mask of anonymity, is beyond pardon.
I have already warned you once.
- Ronald Poirier ^*^
Moon Shyne
Let's try this in words of one syllable, since your comprehension seems to
be as bit lacking.
Kiss Off.
>
> - Ronald Poirier ^*^
>
Werebat
Moon Shyne wrote:
So let me get this straight:
1. You are deliberately calling me names, insulting my intelligence, and
telling me to "kiss off" on the internet when I have already told you
that I find it annoying when you do so
2. You are doing this under cover of anonymity
3. You refuse to identify yourself, even when asked
Does that about cover it?
- Ronald Poirier ^*^
Moon Shyne
Yup - though no one is forcing you to read my posts.
>
> 2. You are doing this under cover of anonymity
With as many times as some former harrassers and stalkers have identified me
on the internet? Probably not.
>
> 3. You refuse to identify yourself, even when asked
I refuse to post my personal information on the internet - and you didn't
ask, you demanded.
>
> Does that about cover it?
No - you let out the part about where you're an idiot.
>
> - Ronald Poirier ^*^
>
Werebat
Irrelevant according to the law. No one is forcing the victim of
telephone stalking to stay on the line, either.
>>2. You are doing this under cover of anonymity
>
>
> With as many times as some former harrassers and stalkers have identified me
> on the internet? Probably not.
You refuse to identify yourself, ergo you are operating under cover of
anonymity.
>>3. You refuse to identify yourself, even when asked
>
>
> I refuse to post my personal information on the internet - and you didn't
> ask, you demanded.
I do not even need to ask, according to the law. You deliberately
annoyed me. This is punishable by up to two years in prison.
>>Does that about cover it?
>
>
> No - you let out the part about where you're an idiot.
I also left out the part where you are committing a federal offense:
47 U.S.C. 223 (and I quote):
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate
telecommunications or other types of communications that are
transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing
his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any
person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18
or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
You now face a fine of up to $50,000 and up to two years in prison,
"Moonshyne". You are correct, there are plenty of people who have
chosen to post what is probably your identification, and this will be
used when I contact the authorities.
Expect to be notified by the authorities soon.
- Ronald Poirier ^*^
Moon Shyne
You jumped into a thread that wasn't about you, wasn't directed at you, and
had nothing to do with you. You inserted yourself into the situation.
>
>
>>>2. You are doing this under cover of anonymity
>>
>>
>> With as many times as some former harrassers and stalkers have identified
>> me on the internet? Probably not.
>
> You refuse to identify yourself, ergo you are operating under cover of
> anonymity.
Ergo, I think you're still an idiot. I refuse to identify my personal
information on the internet. No one, no authority, can compel me to do so.
Thanks for playing, don't forget your parting gifts.
>
>
>>>3. You refuse to identify yourself, even when asked
>>
>>
>> I refuse to post my personal information on the internet - and you didn't
>> ask, you demanded.
>
> I do not even need to ask, according to the law. You deliberately annoyed
> me. This is punishable by up to two years in prison.
ROFLMAO!! Annoying someone is punishable by up to two years in prison?
Go for it. Oh, wanna cite that federal law, while you're at it?
Ever hear of the first amendment, by the way? You may want to brush up on
it.
>
>
>>>Does that about cover it?
>>
>>
>> No - you let out the part about where you're an idiot.
>
> I also left out the part where you are committing a federal offense:
>
> 47 U.S.C. 223 (and I quote):
>
> "Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate
> telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted,
> in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity
> and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who
> receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned
> not more than two years, or both."
By all means, go turn yourself in. You see, MY identity was already
established, thanks to the prior set of stalkers and harrassers. So there's
no non-disclosure of my identity - they already made it public knowledge
:-)
Never thought I'd be thanking them for it, but there you have it.
Your claim is baseless, and patently untrue.
>
> You now face a fine of up to $50,000 and up to two years in prison,
> "Moonshyne". You are correct, there are plenty of people who have chosen
> to post what is probably your identification, and this will be used when I
> contact the authorities.
>
> Expect to be notified by the authorities soon.
No problem - I'm sure they'll be very interested to see what you've been up
to.
Don't suppose you're equally familiar with the penalties for filing false
reports?
You may want to be.
Now take your pathetic little threats, and run along, and let the adults
have some peace and quiet.
>
> - Ronald Poirier ^*^
>
Gini
"Moon Shyne" wrote
.................................
>
> Now take your pathetic little threats, and run along, and let the adults
> have some peace and quiet.
LOL! This is fun! Your turn, Ron. (Say, could you two trim your posts a
little?)
==
DB
"Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote in
> LOL! This is fun!
You must be really bored to bother with this!
Yes, i am bored too! ;-)
Tiffany
"Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote in message
news:xPdyf.1342$8r1.1280@trndny01...
I was thinking the same thing! Geez... entertain but make it easier for us
already!
T
Gini
"DB" <SlipN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:i4eyf.4441$or4....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote in
>> LOL! This is fun!
>
> You must be really bored to bother with this!
No bother at all. This been most entertaining and Ron is in prime form.
(He tends to be a little voyeuristic but rarely with this level of decorum.)
==
Moon Shyne
Gee Mom, do I HAAAAAAAAVE to??
I still think he's an idiot, and I maintain my first amendment rights to say
so!
On the other hand, if he thinks he can prove that by responding to a post by
Bob, my INTENTION was to annoy HIM........ go for it.
When the Feds show up, I'll offer them coffee and fresh brownies :-)
>
>
Moon Shyne
ROFLMAO!!
It actually gets funnier. Ron, himself, identified me by name and location
on this very newsgroup.
So much for his insistance that I refuse to "identify" myself.
Oh, and I still think he's an idiot.
>
>
Gini
He only plays one on the internet. (And he's damn good at it.)
==
==
Moon Shyne
"Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote in message news:zGgyf.156$Iw3.53@trndny06...
>
> "Moon Shyne" <moons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vTfyf.67062$Dk.2...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>
>> "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote in message
>> news:xPdyf.1342$8r1.1280@trndny01...
>>>
>>
>> ROFLMAO!!
>>
>> It actually gets funnier. Ron, himself, identified me by name and
>> location on this very newsgroup.
>>
>> So much for his insistance that I refuse to "identify" myself.
>>
>> Oh, and I still think he's an idiot.
> ==
> He only plays one on the internet. (And he's damn good at it.)
> ==
> ==
Think those Feds are gonna show up soon? Those brownies are almost done
:-)
>
>
Dusty
Are those Magic Brownies or just the regular kind? Either way, save me one!
Moon Shyne
"Dusty" <No_...@home.org> wrote in message
news:N5GdnWakTKE...@adelphia.com...
LMAO!! Just the regular kind - not even any walnuts, since my son doesn't
like walnuts..... but a fresh pot of coffee, straight or crooked to go
with....... see if you can get a ride here from the Feds, since Dingbat
says he's sending 'em on over!
>
>
Gini
Ya know you caused me to go toss all the stuff out of my pantry cabinet
looking
for a box of brownie mix and there wasn't one there. I had to bake a lemon
cake instead.
==
==
Werebat
Moon Shyne wrote:
> "Werebat" <ranpo...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>You now face a fine of up to $50,000 and up to two years in prison,
>>"Moonshyne". You are correct, there are plenty of people who have chosen
>>to post what is probably your identification, and this will be used when I
>>contact the authorities.
>>
>>Expect to be notified by the authorities soon.
>
>
> No problem - I'm sure they'll be very interested to see what you've been up
> to.
Since the bill was only recently signed into law, I am quite safe, I
assure you.
> Don't suppose you're equally familiar with the penalties for filing false
> reports?
Nothing false about them, "Moonshyne". You are in violation of the law.
> You may want to be.
See above.
> Now take your pathetic little threats, and run along, and let the adults
> have some peace and quiet.
They are not MY "pathetic little threats", they are United States law
signed by our Commander in Chief. Do you think the President is an
"idiot", too?
- Ronald Poirier ^*^
Werebat
Moon Shyne wrote:
> "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote in message
> news:xPdyf.1342$8r1.1280@trndny01...
>
>>"Moon Shyne" wrote
>>.................................
>>
>>>Now take your pathetic little threats, and run along, and let the adults
>>>have some peace and quiet.
>>
>>==
>>LOL! This is fun! Your turn, Ron. (Say, could you two trim your posts a
>>little?)
>>==
>
>
> Gee Mom, do I HAAAAAAAAVE to??
>
> I still think he's an idiot, and I maintain my first amendment rights to say
> so!
>
> On the other hand, if he thinks he can prove that by responding to a post by
> Bob, my INTENTION was to annoy HIM........ go for it.
Read the facts and weep, "Moonshyne":
>>>>So let me get this straight:
>>>>
>>>>1. You are deliberately calling me names, insulting my
intelligence, and
>>>>telling me to "kiss off" on the internet when I have already told you
>>>>that I find it annoying when you do so
>>>
>>>
>>>Yup - though no one is forcing you to read my posts.
You just admitted to your intention to annoy me.
This is a serious law, and annoying people anonymously is a serious
offense. So serious that you can go to jail for years if you do it.
Thank goodness our government has finally seen the need to do something
about this horrid crime.
I am a reasonable person so I will give you one last chance to identify
yourself. You are correct that I have posted what I *think* is your
true identity, but that is really just a guess gleaned from what others
have said (and I have seen at least two names given for you, so I can't
really be sure).
If you fail to comply with my request that you disclose your identity
(and understand that according to the law I do not need to request your
disclosure, YOU are responsible for doing so when you intend to annoy,
which is something you have already admitted to doing), then I will be
forced to report you to the FBI. It is a criminal act to fail to report
a federal crime, so I am already taking a considerable risk in letting
things get this far without telling the authorities.
This is your FINAL warning.
- Ronald Poirier ^*^
Moon Shyne
>
>
> Moon Shyne wrote:
>
>> "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote in message
>> news:xPdyf.1342$8r1.1280@trndny01...
>>
>>>"Moon Shyne" wrote
>>>.................................
>>>
>>>>Now take your pathetic little threats, and run along, and let the adults
>>>>have some peace and quiet.
>>>
>>>==
>>>LOL! This is fun! Your turn, Ron. (Say, could you two trim your posts a
>>>little?)
>>>==
>>
>>
>> Gee Mom, do I HAAAAAAAAVE to??
>>
>> I still think he's an idiot, and I maintain my first amendment rights to
>> say so!
>>
>> On the other hand, if he thinks he can prove that by responding to a post
>> by Bob, my INTENTION was to annoy HIM........ go for it.
>
> Read the facts and weep, "Moonshyne":
>
> >>>>So let me get this straight:
> >>>>
> >>>>1. You are deliberately calling me names, insulting my
> intelligence, and
> >>>>telling me to "kiss off" on the internet when I have already told you
> >>>>that I find it annoying when you do so
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yup - though no one is forcing you to read my posts.
>
> You just admitted to your intention to annoy me.
Um, try reading for comprehension. I called you moron, and an idiot, and
told you to kiss off when you jumped into a thread that had nothing to do
with you, about you, and decided that it was "annoying you" -
Life is full of petty annoyances, you're one of them.
Get over it.
>
> This is a serious law, and annoying people anonymously is a serious
> offense. So serious that you can go to jail for years if you do it. Thank
> goodness our government has finally seen the need to do something about
> this horrid crime.
>
> I am a reasonable person so I will give you one last chance to identify
> yourself. You are correct that I have posted what I *think* is your true
> identity, but that is really just a guess gleaned from what others have
> said (and I
You have already identified me, golly gee, I have the "evidence". Why not
go ask your friend Brandon what you're supposed to do when you harrassment,
annoying of another person and threats don't work?
Oh, and since we're on the topic, my post, to which you originally replied,
was directed towards someone else, about something else, and clearly was
fueled by an intention other than to annoy you (you DO know that the world
doesn't revolve around you, right?)
Your response, on the other hand, was harrassing, clearly with the intent to
annoy me, and your subsequent warnings and threats are clearly an attempt to
intimidate me (though they're so laughable that they wouldn't work with my
11 year old child) - so when you call the feds? You need to turn yourself
in - you're at risk for up to 2 years in jail, and up to .... remind me, how
much was that fine? Any chance they'll share it with me?
3 guess what you can do with your last chance
Oh, and I still assert my first amendment rights to state that I think
you're an idiot.
>
> If you fail to comply with my request that you disclose your identity (and
> understand that according to the law I do not need to request your
> disclosure, YOU are responsible for doing so when you intend to annoy,
> which is something you have already admitted to doing),
Wrong again, but hey, don't let that stop you.
then I will be
> forced to report you to the FBI. It is a criminal act to fail to report a
> federal crime, so I am already taking a considerable risk in letting
> things get this far without telling the authorities.
>
> This is your FINAL warning.
I'm so glad to hear that - this is getting tedious.
>
> - Ronald Poirier ^*^
>
Moon Shyne
>
>
> Moon Shyne wrote:
>
>
>
>> Now take your pathetic little threats, and run along, and let the adults
>> have some peace and quiet.
>
> They are not MY "pathetic little threats", they are United States law
> signed by our Commander in Chief. Do you think the President is an
> "idiot", too?
Actually, yes. And I assert my first amendment rights to state so.
Now take your pathetic little threats back to Brandon, and tell him that it
isn't working.
>
> - Ronald Poirier ^*^
>
Gini
"Moon Shyne" <moons...@hotmail.com> wrote
................................
>
> Now take your pathetic little threats back to Brandon, and tell him that
> it isn't working.
Brandon? Who's Brandon? I wasn't ready for that. You guys not trimming
your posts has caused me undue alarm and I'm sure there's a federal law
against that, too. I might have to turn both of you over to the prosecutor.
==
Moon Shyne
ROFLMAO!! Brandon is another twit, quite like Dingbat, who's been teaching
him about this bill recently signed into law - you know, the one that the
Dingbat claims is so new he's "quite safe" from it, but thinks he can hammer
me with it?
I'm sort of curious to see just how many "last chance"s the Dingbat's going
to give me - this is like the joke about the IBM programmer, who sits on the
side of the bed all night, telling his wife how good it's GOING to be.
I'm all done with the Dingbat. If he wants to continue to make an ass of
himself, he'll do so, with or without anyone's permission.
>
>
Beverly
>Hi, I live in massachusetts and I make roughly $63,000.00/year. I pay
>$1200.00 per month in child support for one child.
>
>This year I am getting married and we are expecting our first child in
>september.
>
>My fiance is out of work, and I don't expect her to go back for some
>time, so before the end of the year both wife and child will be
>dependants.
>
>Is there precedence in Massachusetts for getting child support lowered
>under such circumstances? $100.00 per month would help out a great
>deal. Should I risk it? Would I need a lawyer?
>
>I look forward to hearing your comments.
>
>Thanks!!
>
>Jim
I have never seen subsequent decisions/responsibilities factor into
the child support equation. I seriously doubt you can get child
support lowered due to new obligations.
Beverly
Gini
Damn! Now I'm gonna have to get back to work ;-)
==
Moon Shyne
>
> "Moon Shyne" <moons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:CPsyf.71302$Dk.6...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>
>> "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote in message
>> news:lEsyf.865$FS3.469@trndny04...
>>>
>>> "Moon Shyne" <moons...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> ................................
>>>>
> ==
> Damn! Now I'm gonna have to get back to work ;-)
I saved you some brownies :-)
> ==
>
>
Beverly
"resultant money to live on" after just basic taxes (SS, Med, Fed) and
child support. For illustrative purposes, I assumed both parents made
exactly the same in order to set what they should be spending on the
children the same. When the NCP makes more than the CP, the numbers
skew in favor of the CP even more dramatically.
At any rate, I assumed that there were two children and used my
state's guidelines for child support. AFTER what is assumed to be
spent on the children is deducted from combined incomes in my random
sample, the NCP has a full 10% LESS of his gross pay to live on than
does the CP. This is AFTER the equal contributions toward raising
children. Hence, given equal income and responsibility, can we not
say the CP is unduly benefited by an additional 5% of the NCPs gross
income?
This is BECAUSE of tax treatment. The disparity only grows worse when
state taxes are assessed and any other mandatory deduction is
necessary.
Why should CPs worry about the NCPs taxes, etc...? Because it is
hideous to benefit at the expense of another and CLAIM it is for the
children and my sample clearly shows that equal income and equal
responsibility does not add up to equal money to live on after all is
said and done regarding the children. It is deplorable to not care
what happens to another human being (even if you hate him) so long as
it does not affect you. That goes both ways, btw, as it is also
deplorable when NCPs contribute nothing causing strife for the CP and
the children.
When are we going to wake up and demand that those with equal pay and
equal responsibility have a CHANCE at an equal standard of living? It
just can't happen when child support and taxes cause inequality. And
yes, some NCPs who make decent money are living in poverty after taxes
and child support all while the CP has increased the standard of
living to which her income entitles her.
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:40:30 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
<moons...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
>news:FxGxf.2072$ee6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "LLL" <LEJORGE...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> news:1137099153....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> >$1200.00 per month in child support for one child.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow!!!! that is a lot more than in my state unless that counts daycare
>>> or some extraordinary expense.
>>
>> CP's (and I'm sure LLL is a female CP) have no perspective on how much NCP
>> men are really ordered to pay in CS, medical insurance, life insurance,
>> child care expenses, etc.
>>
>> The $1,200 payment cited is 22.9% of his gross income and that has got to
>> approach at least 50% or more of his net income after taxes.
>>
>> When I got divorced my combined payment for CS, SS, medical insurance, and
>> life insurance took over 34% of my gross income. As a percent of net
>> income
>> after taxes it took 75%. I only retained $.25 of every dollar I earned.
>>
>> It just frosts my butt that women claim ONLY 23% of a man's gross income
>> is
>> not that much. Particularly when taxes take another 40%.
>
>Why would you include your own social security payments, life insurance
>payments and your share of your medical insurance payments in with your
>child support payments? You using that fuzzy math?
>
>And why would it frost your butt that the woman aren't worried about the
>man's taxes on the man's income? Why should that be the woman's concern?
>
>>
>>
>
Beverly
Bob Whiteside
"Beverly" <bev...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:0f6ls1tf470103i2i...@4ax.com...
Dr, Sanford Braver in his book Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths has an
entire chapter on his research into the disparities of standards of living
post-divorce. He adds to the tax analysis done by Beverly the transfer of
tax-free CS income, tax credits for child care, lower tax rates, extra
exemptions, and tax credits for low wage earners. He also points out the
intact household assumptions behind CS guidelines do not apply to divorced
households. Fathers have second resident expenses, buy extra things like
clothes for their children, and visitation expenses not considered in the
intact household assumptions.
DB
"Beverly" <bev...@hiwaay.net> wrote in
>I just did some calculations which illustrate the disparity in
> "resultant money to live on" after just basic taxes (SS, Med, Fed) and
> child support.
$63K/yr seems really good to us common folks that exist on $20k/yr.
Had I gone to college and got a real education, maybe I could afford child
support and a decent place to stay in, but that's unlikely to happen in my
late 40's now. Guess I'll just have to get used to living on nothing, but
I'm used to that!
Werebat
Moon Shyne wrote:
> "Werebat" <ranpo...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1gnyf.8380$Dh.1618@dukeread04...
>>Read the facts and weep, "Moonshyne":
>>
>>
>>>>>>So let me get this straight:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. You are deliberately calling me names, insulting my
>>
>>intelligence, and
>>
>>>>>>telling me to "kiss off" on the internet when I have already told you
>>>>>>that I find it annoying when you do so
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yup - though no one is forcing you to read my posts.
>>
>>You just admitted to your intention to annoy me.
>
>
> Um, try reading for comprehension. I called you moron, and an idiot, and
> told you to kiss off when you jumped into a thread that had nothing to do
> with you, about you, and decided that it was "annoying you" -
>
> Life is full of petty annoyances, you're one of them.
>
> Get over it.
I could easily do so if you only identified yourself, "Moonshyne". But
you have refused to. This is against the law. You are a criminal.
Your arguments cannot change this fact.
>>This is a serious law, and annoying people anonymously is a serious
>>offense. So serious that you can go to jail for years if you do it. Thank
>>goodness our government has finally seen the need to do something about
>>this horrid crime.
>>
>>I am a reasonable person so I will give you one last chance to identify
>>yourself. You are correct that I have posted what I *think* is your true
>>identity, but that is really just a guess gleaned from what others have
>>said (and I
>
>
> You have already identified me, golly gee, I have the "evidence". Why not
> go ask your friend Brandon what you're supposed to do when you harrassment,
> annoying of another person and threats don't work?
It is not my responsibility to identify you, it is YOUR reponsibility to
do so. And I have already stated that there are at least two names that
have come up in searching for your identity. You are hiding behind
internet anonymity as a way of annoying people, and this is clearly
against the law as I have already pointed out.
> Oh, and since we're on the topic, my post, to which you originally replied,
> was directed towards someone else, about something else, and clearly was
> fueled by an intention other than to annoy you (you DO know that the world
> doesn't revolve around you, right?)
You have already admitted that your intent was to annoy me, so there is
no further need for discussion on this point.
> Your response, on the other hand, was harrassing, clearly with the intent to
> annoy me
Even if this were true, you will note that I properly identified myself
at the end of the post, in accordance with the new law. You have done
no such thing.
> and your subsequent warnings and threats are clearly an attempt to
> intimidate me
No, they are an attempt to give you a way out of trouble with the FBI.
You have shown repeatedly that you are not interested in keeping the
law, so I am now forced to report you.
> (though they're so laughable that they wouldn't work with my
> 11 year old child) - so when you call the feds? You need to turn yourself
> in - you're at risk for up to 2 years in jail, and up to .... remind me, how
> much was that fine? Any chance they'll share it with me?
I have not broken the new law. You have. There is no need for me to
turn myself in.
> 3 guess what you can do with your last chance
It saddens me to see that you continue to refuse to identify yourself,
even after I have given you so many chances. Hopefully you will one day
come to a place where you will choose to obey the law rather than flout it.
> Oh, and I still assert my first amendment rights to state that I think
> you're an idiot.
You have every right to do so on the internet -- so long as you identify
yourself. You have failed to do so, and refused to do so when asked
(which I am not required to do). I now have no choice but to report you.
>>If you fail to comply with my request that you disclose your identity (and
>>understand that according to the law I do not need to request your
>>disclosure, YOU are responsible for doing so when you intend to annoy,
>>which is something you have already admitted to doing),
>
>
> Wrong again, but hey, don't let that stop you.
I have already pointed out where you admitted that you intended to annoy
me. This is damning evidence.
- Ronald Poirier ^*^
Moon Shyne
"Werebat" <ranpo...@cox.net> wrote in message news:SKzyf.8434$Dh.7716@dukeread04...
>
>
> Moon Shyne wrote:
>> "Werebat" <ranpo...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1gnyf.8380$Dh.1618@dukeread04...
>
<snip>
>
> Even if this were true, you will note that I properly identified myself at the end of the post, in accordance with the
> new law. You have done no such thing.
Oh yes I have - read my other post.
And then? FOAD - you're an idiot, and I assert my first amendment rights to publicly state so.
DB
"Moon Shyne" <Gold...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> And then? FOAD - you're an idiot, and I assert my first amendment rights
> to publicly state so.
Seems Ron has you wound up pretty tight to respond to all his posts! LOL
Moon Shyne
"DB" <SlipN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:ChAyf.8228$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Moon Shyne" <Gold...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>
>> And then? FOAD - you're an idiot, and I assert my first amendment rights to publicly state so.
>
> Seems Ron has you wound up pretty tight to respond to all his posts! LOL
Not even close - I'm having fun complying with his demands, while not providing that which he demands.
His little temper tantrum is amusing.
>
>
>
teachrmama
$63K may sound good, but it all depends on where you live. Some places have
far higher cost-of-living than others, so salaries look higher, but, in
reality, only pay for the same things that $30K might somewhere else. We
live in a high cost of living area, and my husband's daughter lives in a
very low cost of living area, so the CS that is sent (20% of income) goes
way, way further there than it does here. So she is getting a bonus. If we
lived near her, with lower salary because of lower living costs, she would
be getting far less.
Werebat
See, now right here, you are insinuating that you have managed to
identify yourself without identifying yourself.
As I said, I think this is one for the feds to handle.
- Ronald Poirier ^*^
Moon Shyne
"Werebat" <ranpo...@cox.net> wrote in message news:ZmAyf.8439$Dh.5494@dukeread04...
By all means - though I guess this means I'll have to make more brownies.
>
> - Ronald Poirier ^*^
>
abdd
> does the CP. This is AFTER the equal contributions toward raising
> children. Hence, given equal income and responsibility, can we not
> say the CP is unduly benefited by an additional 5% of the NCPs gross
> income?
The government openly admits it adds a back-door alimony amount
into the schedule for funds transfer for the first child.
Add to these spoils:
-the father has to maintain a household for his children for which,
unlike the mother's, there is no reimbursement
-the mother can choose not to indulge and spoil the children
as would have to be done to use up the funds transfered to her
only on the children and simply, for example, get lipo with
the large surplus. further, the mother can simply choose to
only meet the most crudely basic needs of the children and,
for example, get her lipo with a jewelry shopping spree
chaser. or, the mother can simply choose to meet less than
the most crudely basic needs of the children and, for example,
add cocaine to the jewelry to the lipo
-the father has the burden of the very costly legal expenses
to address denied visitation, changes in financial situation of
his or his ex's, accounting mistakes made by the government
funds transfer monitoring agency, while extensive legal assistance
is provided the mother without charge and without effort
by the government to keep the spoils coming
And no doubt I have missed some.
>When are we going to wake up and demand that those with equal pay and
>equal responsibility have a CHANCE at an equal standard of living?
I'm awake, who of you out there are not awake? You seem to continue
to remain ignorant of the fact the C$ is a carefully crafted and evolved
political vote buying scheme and not a valid government program that
happens to have a few mistakes that those in charge are eager to be
alerted to so they can be fixed (whew!).
> $63K/yr seems really good to us common folks that exist on $20k/yr.
But C$ schedules are mostly just for show. The answer to the question
"how much am I to pay?" is "how much do you have?", or the more
common "how much do you have plus 25%". You'd have to be
making, what $8mil a year to have enough left over in the fraction
not conscripted by the government to live "really good".
> $63K may sound good, but it all depends on where you live.
Additionally, there are usually greater financial demands made
upon employees in better paying positions related to maintaining
their employment (e.g. suitable clothing, more reliable transportation,
business travel funds cache). C$ gleefully ignores such things including
that in the real world overtime, performance bonuses, and so
on do not come with a permanency guarentee.
Bob Whiteside
"abdd" <ab...@hellonearth.org> wrote in message
news:11sm1ot...@corp.supernews.com...
> Additionally, there are usually greater financial demands made
> upon employees in better paying positions related to maintaining
> their employment (e.g. suitable clothing, more reliable transportation,
> business travel funds cache). C$ gleefully ignores such things including
> that in the real world overtime, performance bonuses, and so
> on do not come with a permanency guarentee.
This post brought back old, recurring memories for me.
I argued the court should allow me to retain more income because I needed to
purchase 2-3 new suits per year with accessories to dress appropriately for
my business position. The judge told me to wear my old suits and clothes
until they wore out and then come back to court.
I argued my car allowance was intended to provide a vehicle for business use
and I needed to have the court recognize my vehicle expenses as offsets to
the car allowance received. The judge told me the car allowance was just
more income for me to use to pay more CS.
I argued my business expense reimbursements from my company were to offset
previously incurred business related expenditures. The judge told me that
wasn't how travel and entertained expenses were paid and that money was
available for paying CS too.
I argued my previous compensation had been reduced by a 15% ESOP and the
bonuses program had been changed to no longer pay off. The judge told me
the new bonus program was designed to replace my lost compensation.
Did I mention the judge was an idiot feminist bitch who had a reputation as
the most anti-father judge in the county? I have money set aside to throw a
huge party when this bitch dies!
abdd
> as
> the most anti-father judge in the county? I have money set aside to throw
> a
> huge party when this bitch dies!
There seems to be three categories of judges:
A) Feminist women who will protect their "sisters" at all costs
no matter what.
B) Alpha male wannabe men who try to amass a virtual
harem by helping women who are, of course, all victims
needing the judge's help for things to be fair.
C) Non-feminist women who expect women to be held
responsible for their actions and to hold their children in
high regard like they themselves do by rearing their
kids rather than pursuing political offices like judgeships.
So of course that means you have only poisons A and B
to select from. One judge here proudly proclaims to all listeners
how he even once gave custody to a prostitute--"to be
clear she was a genuine streetwalker" he states--because
"I could see no reason why she should not have her child".
Another judge has been sued numerous times over rulings
seen as beyond incompetent.
There was one judge who display uncommon basic
ability--he was transferred out of family court by
the next week. I used to see this as the practice
of the chief judge of putting the least competent
judges in family court so at least they would not
be hearing murder cases. I now wonder if instead
this is done to insure that family court judges are
only those who always make the "correct" ruling.
Bob Whiteside
> > Did I mention the judge was an idiot feminist bitch who had a reputation
> > as
> > the most anti-father judge in the county? I have money set aside to
throw
> > a
> > huge party when this bitch dies!
>
> There seems to be three categories of judges:
>
> A) Feminist women who will protect their "sisters" at all costs
> no matter what.
>
> B) Alpha male wannabe men who try to amass a virtual
> harem by helping women who are, of course, all victims
> needing the judge's help for things to be fair.
>
> C) Non-feminist women who expect women to be held
> responsible for their actions and to hold their children in
> high regard like they themselves do by rearing their
> kids rather than pursuing political offices like judgeships.
The underlying question is - Where do these judges come from? Types A and B
judges are liberal Democrat governor appointees. Type C judges are
conservative Republican governor appointees.
In my state we have had one Republican governor since 1975. We have not had
a Republican governor for 20 years. So we have the bench heavily impacted
by Type A and B liberal types.
Since these political appointees nearly always run for re-election
unopposed, they continue to have a free hand to advance their ideology in
the judicial system. And because they stay around so long they become
Appeals Court Judges and Supreme Court Justices.
Werebat
Bob Whiteside wrote:
I challenge the notion that republicans are in some way opposed to the
status quo of family court sexism. I can see where you'd get the idea,
but is there any actual proof? Where are the Republican dominated
states where family court is fair to men?
- Ron ^*^
Bob Whiteside
Kansas is one. The Kansas state AG has challenged several federal CS
mandates in the federal judicial system.
Werebat
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Challenged several federal CS mandates" is nice. Would you say that
Kansas family court is fair to men?
I believe Mike Cox's political affiliation is Republican, no?
Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from... Republican
rhetoric certainly seems more in favor of men's rights... But I don't
actually see Republicans treating the issue in a concrete way any more
seriously then Democrats.
The sad fact is that the C$ game puts money into Republican pockets too.
That they blame liberal Democrats while stuffing their pockets does
not impress me much.
- Ron ^*^
Bob Whiteside
I think you know this, but I'll restate the historic record. It was
Congressional action by the Democrats that got us to where we are today.
It was Democrats, led by Senator Russell Long of Louisiana, who tried to
convince other members of Congress there was a "perceived connection"
between fathers abandoning children and increased growth in welfare
spending. Few Senators agreed. But political maneuvering in Congress
allowed the idea of federal involvement in CS to be attached to other social
services bills that had broader appeal and support. Upon signing the
legislation in 1975 President Ford said the CS provision injected the
federal government too far into family law and called on Congress to correct
the defects. Congress never corrected the issues Ford raised.
The Democrat controlled Congress finally acted in 1984 by expanding the
powers and size of the federal OCSE based on the reasoning deadbeat fathers
were America's number one problem. President Reagan could have vetoed the
bill, but at the time he did not have enough Republican votes in Congress to
sustain a veto and he would have been overridden by the Democrat Congress.
During the Clinton years the federal powers over CS were expanded further.
Administration delegates to the Hague Conference caved in 1995, and told
foreign governments federal involvement in CS matters would be expanded.
President Clinton used his bully pulpit to "sell" expanding federal
involvement in CS to the American public as more welfare reform.
The current CS system we all suffer through today is the result of Democrats
flexing their muscles in Congress and Republicans not being able to stop
them.
BTW - The most father-friendly party is the Libertarians. At the last
presidential election, the Libertarians had a portion of their platform
devoted to fathers and father's rights.
Gini
"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote
....
>
> The current CS system we all suffer through today is the result of
> Democrats
> flexing their muscles in Congress and Republicans not being able to stop
> them.
Arrggghh!! What a buncha crap! You act like the Republicans are your poor
powerless
friends who simply cannot stand up to the evil all powerful Democrats! The
Republican majority has been in
power for several years now and haven't done a damn thing. You think that's
because of the big and
mighty Democrats?? Noooo....not only are they incompetent, they just don't
give a damn and if fathers don't
soon wake up to that glaring fact, they will get absolutely nowhere!
===
> BTW - The most father-friendly party is the Libertarians. At the last
> presidential election, the Libertarians had a portion of their platform
> devoted to fathers and father's rights.
There you go. The Democrats think women should have preferential treatment
and the
Republicans are just plain stupid and couldn't care less about anyone who
doesn't have a few bills
to slip them. Fathers need to move, enmass, to the Libertarian Party.
===
===
Werebat
Bob Whiteside wrote:
And during the various times Republicans have been in control of
congress, did they do anything to rectify the situation or did they keep
the money flowing and the fathers second-class citizens in family court?
I'm sorry, I've heard plenty of Republicans pointing the finger of blame
at Democrats regarding the situation, and seen very little action that
they've taken when it could have been. I'll agree that much of the bad
situation we are now in is due to policies pushed by liberals and
Democrats (although the misplaced chivalry of certain Republicans has
certainly done its damage too), but as I said before I am unimpressed
with conservatives and Republicans who claim to be hewpwess widdle
innocents at the mercy of those mean ol' liberal Democrats while
enjoying their slice of the C$ pie.
It's like listening to Democrats piss and moan about Republicans
starting the war in Iraq when most of them voted in favor of it. Sorry,
doesn't wash.
> BTW - The most father-friendly party is the Libertarians. At the last
> presidential election, the Libertarians had a portion of their platform
> devoted to fathers and father's rights.
Agreed. That's why I voted for Badnarik.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
That's pretty much my take on things too. I'm not sure the Libs will
ever get anywhere but if they start making significant showings in the
polls the Big Two are going to start wondering why.
- Ron ^*^
Bob Whiteside
Personally, I would much rather talk about CS on the merits of the issues,
not on the political side of it. But you asked me about the political stuff
and I responded with the facts in the historical record as I understand it
and others have written about it. But to understand the issues you have to
understand how we got to where we are at. The real problem we all face is
federal government intrusion into state family law and the spineless state
government officials who go along with the program to get the federal
government handouts.
At one of the hearings I testified at before the House Judiciary Committee
the chairman of the committee (a Republican) tried to tell me the state was
"forced" to adopt the federal CS mandates. I went on the record telling him
(respectfully of course) he was full of it. And the state had the option to
not adopt the federal mandates and the only reason the state did what they
did was out of greed to get the federal money. He knew I was right and went
on the another question about my testimony.
Chris
The most FREEDOM friendly party is the Libertarian party; the ONLY party I
ever registered with.
> At the last
> presidential election, the Libertarians had a portion of their platform
> devoted to fathers and father's rights.
Alan Keyes is also against the "Child $upport" system. Too bad he didn't
win!
More of the truth: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050402
>
>