Messages

>http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2003/reports/arrears/
>
>pay close attention to the California data and yes, like
>yours, Mist, it's from 2003.

What do you want me to pay attention to? There's nothing there that refutes anything I've said. Where is the figure saying that MOST people aren't paying support? For someone who claims to understand statistics, you've cited an article that doesn't support your view at all.

It IS interesting that your own study says that only 20% of households in CA who are in arrears have no income - compared to 11% nationwide in my study. Looks like you're confirming that "I don't have a job" is not a very common situation - which is one of the things I've been saying.

>
>IF the system you so defend worked, why are there arrears to
>begin with? Look at those numbers..that is not an 89% success
>rate like you posted from  your article.

Really? How about specific figures. I didn't see any figures that state a percentage of households that are in arrears, but feel free to point it out.

>
>Having taken several stat classes in college, info can be
>skewed.

Sure. If the reader is gullible enough. If you pay attention to the data and don't read too much into it, you can learn something.

Oh, and btw, the survey that you're touting happens to use my survey as a source - so THEY think it's valid. Thanks for supporting my evidence.

>9 states with data taken from 2003-2004?
>
>ONLY 9 states??
>come on now, that is seriously skewed data.

Sorry, but it's a sample. There's a branch of mathematics called 'statistics' which allows you to choose a sample rather than collecting data on every single person. Read up on it.

>The article was interesting though. But I did notice a lot of
>"mays" in there, like this "may" be the reason or that "may"
>be the cause....

Yes, and you'll note that I didn't comment on those issues. I simply commented on the factual part of the study.

>
>Why do you keep saying that we, as in responders to your
>posts, DON'T think about the kids??? So you're saying caring
>about your kids only comes down to money???

I never said any such thing. But many of the posts here indicate that the "I don't think I should have to pay child support" people have forgotten about the kids.

>
>Perhaps that is why you'll not get any to little support on
>your side of this issue.

Yet 'my side' of the issue is the only one which has presented any data. If you choose to ignore the facts to go with your bias, I can't stop you.

>  It has nothing to do with YOUR issue.  I never came here
>talking about the issue you speak of.  I barely even mentioned
>it.  You came here with "evidence".  Numbers, all it is is
>numbers.  Unless you poll everyone in the system and how it
>affects them, you will never know if it is working or not.  By
>working, I mean is it just or right, not if people are getting
>their child support.  You can never offer enough "evidence"
>that it is "working"...back to the figuring thing again.  

Sorry, but numbers are the only way to tell if the system is working - that is unless you want to rely on the feelings of a few people who may not be typical in any way.

I'll rely on careful studies done by reputable organizations, thank you.

>
>It has everything to do with whether I like what you write or
>not.  You are.....not so nice to people here.  You offer
>flawed arguments, stomp your feet up and down and proclaim, "I
>am right..see, I offered evidence".  Blah blah blah.  I am
>just exposing some of your weaknesses so that the other folks
>here get a break.  Nome sane?

I apologize that my wanting to discuss facts rather than emotional biases bothers you. If you think that emotional biases are better, that's your choice, but don't expect me to join you.

If you really read this board, you'll find that I've offered a great deal of advice on quite a few topics to a lot of people. The reason I've taken the tone I have with this issue is that a small number of people are offering advice that I believe is actually going to harm someone. In particular, a couple of people are arguing that the system is invalid and one owes nothing to the system - which is a good way to land someone in jail if they try to follow that advice. So, yes, I am hostile to people who are offering harmful advice to innocent people. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

>Isn't what your evidence was a blantantly biased collection of
>data based on a group of people who are recieving funds
>collected by the agency that calculated the stats?? If the

No. The study was done by a third party source paid by the US Dept of Health and Human Services - NOT the state child support agencies.

If you see an error in the report, feel free to provide it. So far, it's the only data on the table.

>actual families were asked "So your receiving child support do
>you think your getting the correct amount or a fair amount?"
>Do you seriously believe the same % of people who the system
>is on paper is "working" for would say yes?? I for one doubt

I don't know. Why don't you find some evidence to tell us one way or the other rather than just making things up?

>it. Do you think if the people who owed back support were
>asked "So why do you owe back support?" Some of them at least
>would say "Because I cannot afford to pay." Yes some would
>probably say "Cause I'm just not going to pay it" Most want to
>support thier children but life happens and they just simply
>can't and the child support agencies simply veiw these same
>people and lump them in with the "dead beats" and are just as
>hostile towards them as they would be to somebody who just
>won't pay for thier own selfish reasons.

Why don't you find some evidence to tell us one way or the other rather than just making things up?

And why don't you read the report that I provided? They specifically addressed this problem in the section where they state that only a very small percentage of people had low or no income. The overwhelming majority of people in arrears have income.

>Funny, I don't seem to claiming anything.  No claim...no data
>needed.  You missed the whole point.  You are in everyone's
>face about everything.  That is my point.  If you don't like
>what someone says, you come up with the .."give me facts"
>crap.  Which is why I offered my explanation of what an
>opinion is.  The data behind all of this?  I knew you'd ask.
>Read your previous messages.  That is my data.  I bet more
>than a few would agree with me.  If we take a poll and 80% of
>respondents think that you are on rant after rant, does that
>make it true?  See what I mean about figures can lie and liars
>can figure?


Nice try, but that has nothing to do with the issue.

People are claiming that the entire system is broken and should be discarded. I provided evidence that the system works most of the time. No one has refuted my evidence or even provided evidence to back their claim that the entire system needs to be discarded.

Just what does that have to do with whether you like what I write or not?

>Prove it doesn't.

I've already provided evidence that the system works most of the time.

So where's your evidence that it doesn't (other than a blatantly biased poll which got 10 votes in a self-selected group of people having problems out of 50 million or so families affected)?

>Prove it doesn't.

I've already provided evidence that the system works most of the time.

So where's your evidence that it doesn't (other than a blatantly biased poll which got 10 votes in a self-selected group of people having problems out of 50 million or so families affected)?

And, yet, I've provided independently derived data to back up my position and you haven't.

And, no, asking you to back up your claims is not an 'unverifiable rant'.

As I've stated repeatedly. The system isn't perfect - but the evidence is that it works most of the time.

As soon as you have evidence (other than unverifiable anectdotal stories), feel free to provide it.

>One point that goes in hand with that Baby is, when a NCP is
>made an obligor by a court, agency, employee of the state, in
>many times at a high amount, such person is therefor made to
>get a higher paying job, or even another job, which in turn is
>used against said individual to reduce visatation which is
>directly correlated to ones support, which then is raised
>again for supposed lack of time with said child.


And I"m STILL waiting for you to provide evidence that this happens with any reasonable frequency.

As it is, I'm the only one who has provided ANY factual evidence.