KatScratch wrote:

---

E-con, the point I was saying about Zaps "comment" was that the real problem has nothing to do with the P.O.S. (piece of shit) women who use the kids to bang out a check, that's the same finger pointing game the femi-nazies use when they say it is ALL the guys fault that they got pregnant in the first place. It's the system's (Child Support Agency's) fault for making it possible, for capitolizing on greed and using "women's rights" as a guideline for getting their (the system's) cut. To say it is because more than a few women have their greedy little hands out....that's just a finger in the wrong direction. Want to bitch, go to the real problem the system that allows the bullshit in the first place! A lot of the debate/discussion thus far was logical and true until that statement. That statement may be a true expression of his thought, but it is based on an emotional response to point the preverbial finger and not to go the next step and see the system is corrupted in the way it capitolizes on the P.O.S.!

Several things here.  Zap's generalizations of because more than a few women have their greedy little hands out..  sends up red flags: no logic and all bitter emotions suggests deeper emotional issues regarding women.  I suppose that debating is an interesting mode of exercising pent up ... uh... hostilities...  but drops the credibility and believablility of all else said a notch or few.

something else zap and KatScratch were talking about on page 5 following zap's off topic rant against his wife....







KatScratch



Guru


Posts: 1433
Date: 11 days ago
Views: 171


Quote | ReplyRE: mens rights

---

---

KatScratch

The screwed up part is you believe that comment was on topic and that you find it acceptible to claim it as fact and not just your opinion????






zap



Quote | ReplyRE: mens rights

---

Kat...  everything I say is my opinion of the facts.

Just as everything you or Plush or anyone else says is THEIR opinion of the facts

 

I will definately bear in mind that everything Zap states as fact is in reality only his opinion of the facts... and may in truth not even resemble anything "factual" at all.   (including every single thing he has ever said about his wife, son, stories cited, people he has claimed to have known, grades, what he does for a living, and high standards of morality and integrity and character he claims to hold... E-con...don't  even mention "certs")

 

I get really pissed off on behalf of ANYONE providing child support, regarding the parasites [ie "new spouse", "boyfriend/girlfriend"] that live off of the child support  which is intended for a child.

I agree with all of you that say the  problem is with the system.

With out delving into great detail, I would like to see a mandatory yearly accounting of all income of each person in the household in which  child support is paid.  If the combined income of the rest of the household over 18 is not greater than the child support amount, then the county should step in.

?1 court order the current over 18 group to match child support, or leave (as in the case of unmarried people residing there). (might not be practical, and it IS hard to make sure that child support is spent on the child rather than supporting a "new spouse".... any other suggestions?)

?2   the the difference between the actual child support order and the combined income of the rest of the household should go into a trust for the child, and held there for things specific for the child... sports fees, photography or dance or music lessons,  camp,  driver's ed, clothing for school, etc.

Bottom line, I think there needs to be an accountablility of the recipient of the child support... some recipients of child support do NOT even realize the extent of parasitic-ness of the new people in their lives... in other cases  some recipients are not strong enough to stand up to bullying "new spouses", "boyfriend'girlfriend" to keep the child support funneled to what will benefit the child specifically.

This required accountability may help inthe following areas:

A) open the eyes of those that don't realize the extent of the parasite that lives with them,

B) help the person paying child support to know that their money is ACTUALLY going to benefit their child and not some sleazy pond scum parasitic con-artist leach (man or women) which should greatly reduce the animosity, the "I am really getting fucked" feeling (e-con referenced that somewhere in this thread)

C) and the ultimate reason......the child would benefit by receiving the benefits of the money which is alloted for his/her support and welfare and wellbeing.

I'm sure there are going to be problems with this idea.. anyone see a problem and a way to solve it?

 

---

SB wrote:

---

zap wrote: child support calculations.   For not have any (or very few) rights when it comes comes to an umwanted pregnancy, men should be forced to fair market value for 50% of housing, feeding, and clothing the child. If a one bedroom apartment cost $1000 a month and 2 bedroom costs $1200, then guy should pay $100. Right now the baby is costing us about $100 a month for formula, diapers, wipes, so there is another 50 bucks. And clothing $50? So, another $25. I think a $175 a month, or a lump sum lifetime payment of $37,800 sounds about fair for not having any rights.

---

"This required accountability may help inthe following areas:

A) open the eyes of those that don't realize the extent of the parasite that lives with them,

B) help the person paying child support to know that their money is ACTUALLY going to benefit their child and not some sleazy pond scum parasitic con-artist leach (man or women) which should greatly reduce the animosity, the "I am really getting fucked" feeling (e-con referenced that somewhere in this thread)

C) and the ultimate reason......the child would benefit by receiving the benefits of the money which is alloted for his/her support and welfare and wellbeing.

I'm sure there are going to be problems with this idea.. anyone see a problem and a way to solve it?"

Well, I can't argue with the logic here. I do have some idea's and really, really, really, want to express them, BUT I have found I don't play well in this type of topic. The system is screwed up, and the people using it are equally screwed up! Simply put, I believe the child support system is just another form of organized crime that has been sold under the premise of, "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!”  Having custody of all my kids let me tell you something, when the child enforcement agency went after my ex, a couple of things happened. First, they didn't know how to approach it since I was the male. (Long bullshit story I don't want to get into). 2. When I told them I didn’t' want her money and I sure as fuck didn't want anything to do with them, they went ape shit!!! Long story short, they simply could not understand in any way shape or form why I would not want "free money" as one asshole down there put it!!! I was so fucking pissed! It was like watching a bunch of hungry jackals on a fucking hunt.!!! I could go on for days about the things I heard, and things that were said to me! Anyone who doesn't believe or understands that the child enforcement agency is a bunch of crooks, are simply idiots!! PERIOD!

That is a fact by the way. I don’t subscribe to the “there are no such things as facts, only one’s opinion of that facts”, horseshit.  That’s someone who lives in play land that under those conditions can never be wrong, or ignorant be cause right and wrong can’t be defined with opinions! More new age horseshit!

(PC 101) – “That person is not a stupid fuck, they are intellectually challenged!”

zap wrote:

---

(had nothing to do with you Entre  8)  )

---

Yes, but you specifically asked her what she was receiving in child support, which seemed to contradict what you said earlier.  That's what I was questioning.

entre new wrote:

---

SB wrote: should the man be responsible to pay for the woman to go out and work? The child support should be the absolute bare minimum -food, shelter, and clothing. The rest should be up to the mother. If she wants to go out and work and better her life, that is her choice, as was it (in this situation) to have the baby.

 I'm so stunned by this.  Who will supply the rest of the rent for the $1000 a month apartment you spoke of earlier?  Or will they be finding a place with the $100 you so kindly allowed them?    

---

Are you saying that childcare is a basic human need?

According to (see below) Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the father should only have to contribute towards paying for food, shelter, and clothing. If the women solely decides to keep the baby against the wishes of the father, why should he be forced to pay for anything else. He has no interest in numbers 3 through 5.

Why should he care if woman works or not. And the $1000 was based off market value. Is there not subsidized social housing for welfare people in the US? People have to make difficult decision everyday, and they have to live with the consquences of those choices.

1. Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep, etc.

2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, limits, stability, etc.

3. Belongingness and Love needs - work group, family, affection, relationships, etc.

4. Esteem needs - self-esteem, achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, managerial responsibility, etc.

5. Self-Actualization needs - realising personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak exper

scarecrow wrote:

---

  ROFLMAO  *patting the lil puppy on the head* First....I didn't know you were from Ohio.  More of us here than anyone knew. You still don't know that I am or am not "from Ohio".  (another fine example of your stating your opinion and then presenting it as a "fact")  Apparently you are judging me (as you have others in this forum) by your limited abilities and lowley standards again?  Just because your knowledge/research might not extend past the boarders of the state that you live in, doesnt mean that others are as equally limited and narrow minded. Second...You are correct that Ohio law does NOT include support of the mother in child support calculations.  Ohio law DOES include support provided by the mother in the child support equations, whether she is the recipient of the child support, or the payor of the child support.  You do seem to have this issue with women bashing...  and keep stating scenarios as though the women is always the receiver of the child support and that child support provided by the father is the sole source of income.....  more delusions?????  more opinions from a distrubed past of yours that you persist in presenting as "fact"?   poor little puppy.   Keep barking at your reflection in the mirror... maybe you'll impress yourself??? Finally.....  How much support do YOU get?  Round numbers are fine.   Thank you for the amusement you have provided tonight.  Go up one paragraph and re-read. still roflmao puppy antics....  how cute.  

---

Damn scarecrow, I must of missed something. Somebody pissed in your oatmeal. LOL

SB, I cannot believe that you took the trouble to quote Maslow on this as though it proved your point. The problem is:  to take care of the child the woman has to stay alive, to stay alive she has to eat, to eat she has to earn money, to earn money she has to work. 

But no, you are apparently again saying that Joe Taxpayer has more of an obligation to support a child than his father does.  Let's not burden Dad, because Joe will make up the deficit.  Let's not forget that good old Joe didn't even get a boink out of this.

entre new wrote:

---

I have to say, SB, that you are the first person I've ever talked to who has actually believed a single mom should be on government assistance.  Maybe it's because I've never talked to a Canadian about it before.  Around here, the general outcry is "get those lazy bitches off welfare". 

---

I'm not at all saying single mothers should be on welfare.

This what I am saying, a guy meets a girl at the bar. They go shag in the alley and the condom breaks. The guy has a panic attack and the girl says don't worry I'll go get the morning after pill, but she get lazy and doesn't.

They talk over the next few weeks and she assures the guy, who tells her that he wants no part of a child, and that if she's pregnant that she should get an abortion. She tells him that she will because she doesn't want a baby either.

A few more weeks go by and she calls that guy and says she's "late". The guy then says, well have seen a doctor? If want me to come to the appointment I will? When is the earilest you can get an abortiong? After a several seconds of silence, she says, "I don't want an abortion. I'm going to keep the baby."

Currently at this point it's over for the man. That's it, there no other say in the matter. He has two choices, change his identity, or open his wallet.

Now, what I am saying is, how much should be on the hook for? What's reasonable?

Ultimately it's the woman that is making the final decision and she should know full well what the hardships of being a single parent entail.

People choose to skydrive knowing full well that they may die, or they survive, they'll be severly disabled. Should the taxpayer wheel their asses out on to the street because they also made a bad choice? Or should the pilots be made to pay all the hospital bills until the person dies. After all, they have to know that occassionally that someone jumping out of is going to get hurt!

And as I've said before, if a relationship disolves where a child was "mutually" wanted the guy should co-parent and pay.  

Editted to add - And in a perfect world the mother would get off of welfare on her own! She'd find away to over come the obsticles childcare on her own. After all, she choose to have the baby, did she not?

SB wrote:

---

zap wrote: child support calculations.   For not have any (or very few) rights when it comes comes to an umwanted pregnancy, men should be forced to fair market value for 50% of housing, feeding, and clothing the child. If a one bedroom apartment cost $1000 a month and 2 bedroom costs $1200, then guy should pay $100. Right now the baby is costing us about $100 a month for formula, diapers, wipes, so there is another 50 bucks. And clothing $50? So, another $25. I think a $175 a month, or a lump sum lifetime payment of $37,800 sounds about fair for not having any rights.

---

Wow! Correct me if I'm wrong here SB, but I believe what you tried to show here is that if a woman lived on her own (without a child) she would have to pay a certain figure to live and then you added up the difference (from 1 bedroom to 2 bedroom) and dived it by 2 (50%) to get the man's payment of half. Well done! Simple logic and any woman who has lived on their own and supported themselves should be able to understand this logic. Well ladies, you got the half you've been screamin for and if you want more money then you are asking for the man to support you as well and not just the child. Truth well said SB, too bad the reality of it actually happening isn't true as well.....

Scarecrow, I like what you said about accountability. And believe it or not, it actually was so in Ohio long ago. *jumpin in the way back machine* I had to keep a log and receits to verify that log for a short time while I was receiving child support!(we are talking 15+ years ago though) I got a letter informing me that I no longer had to appear for the "monthly accounting meetings". I'm not sure why they stopped doing it, but they did? (maybe it was because he quit his job and moved?) But they used to do it? I think it would expose the P.O.S. people abusing the systems stupidity and show how they are supporting themselves all in the name of child support! (BTW, Zap is bitter and has women issues, but we try to overlook that here )

EN,

Remember, it's the woman's choice to keep the child even after knowing full well the adversity she and the child will face. If she doesn't want to deal with it, there's adoption and abortion.

Secondly, in most states there is probably some form of childcare subsidy to assist low income families to go to work. Yes, it's on the tax payers dime, but hopefully instead of a life time of welfare, the person will work and do better in life. (and will pay more taxes, etc)

I have a friend that got pregnant after shagging a neighbour. He didn't say a thing about what he wanted. He ust started ignoring her and denying it was his kid. She made a decision to to stay home and raise her son without any child support. She took 3 kids in and ran a mini daycare out of her house until her son started kindergarten.

She made the decision not to go after the father because she foundout what an asshole he was, and she didn't want him having any influence over her son's life. Now, if he would have stepped up to plate and to co-parent and have part-time custody rights she would have sought child support.

The kid is 14 now and the father is nowhere to be found, and my friend is happy that her son was raised with people that loved him and been there for him.

Also, sometimes women need to look beyond the child support paycheck and think of the negative influence having some idiot around their children is going to be. Because as it stands now, if you want the money, he's going to have some sort of custody rights.

Zap, I have tried to see your way of thinking.  I have agreed that, at least in theory, neither party should be able to destroy the baby if even one of them wants it.  I have been clear that the woman must take 50% responsibility.  I have gone so far to agree that if there is proof that the man has been clear in his intentions, he should possibly be relieved of responsibility. I have proposed this:

What about this scenario:

People start recognizing sex as risky business and learn to take it seriously.  Couples make an attempt at getting to know each other and learning each other's beliefs before allowing their relationship to become sexual.  Then at some point they sit down and discuss the issues involved:  pregnancy, STD's and the emotional aspects of a sexual relationship.  They decide on what form/s of protection to use and what they will do if the birth control fails.  If one party says they would want to keep the baby, they discuss whether that party is fully capable of taking financial responsibility.  They write a letter of intent, stating what action will be taken if a pregnancy results.  If any party chooses to go against what was agreed on, they take full responsibility for the child.

How's that? 

and nobody bit. 

The fact remains that women have maternal feelings.  If they did not, the human race wouldn't be here.  Women love their children, often from the moment they are aware of them.  There is no way that the consequences of giving up the child can be equalized.

I for one am glad I live in a country that at least tries to even the equation.  I've described how in many years of dating I have NEVER been asked about birth control or abortion beforehand while I have always received significant pressure for immediate sex.  I believe that most men don't even consider the consequences of sex, but a woman can't avoid them.

In a way I'd like to see what would happen if the world could be like you and SB want it.  Who knows, we might see a generation of women who are just too afraid to take the risk.  They may refuse to have sex with men, and perhaps turn to each other.  So many of the present difficulties could be avoided, and we all might be happier that way.

Zap, I don't particularly think it should be decided based on income either.  I was ready to go along with SB's listing (with the addition of medical care and minimal extras like a crib) until he threw in the wrench about no child care contribution.  Despite what you seem to believe about most women, many of us are just interested in a fair shake.

So, what is a fair amount for childcare?

And what is fair compensation for not having equal rights?

food for thought: the recipient may be assessed imputed income because they are in school trying to learn a trade to be better able to provide for themselves and the baby.  They might have medical problems that prevent them from being able to do the work that is available.

Yes.  Absolutely true.  In my case....I was set at an income greater that I have made.  *shrug*  I could still go to jail if I don't pay the set amount of support however.

What do YOU think Scarecrow?