Asking The Tough Questions 2: Schoolyard Rules

[Mr_Doubtfire]

http://mrdoubtfire.blogspot.com/2007/06/asking-tough-questions-part-2.html

[mistoffolees]

Sounds absurd:

"Now tell me how we can convince Uncle Sam and his minions to simply cease breaking up families for profit?"

Can he point to a single family that Uncle Sam broke up? And where is the profit? Look at the cost of operating the court system. Do you think the fees pay for that? Who pays for CPS? Who pays for CS collection? Any minor fees they collect don't cover much of the cost. The government doesn't make money on divorce (other than, perhaps, the fact that two singles pay taxes at a higher rate than a married couple, but Uncle Sam can hardly be blamed for the choice the couple made to separate).

"We are handcuffed by our non profit status. The same thing that allows us to get grants from the gov't stops us from endorsing any politician. We are being effectively paid off and muzzled by Uncle Sam."

So he chose to be a nonprofit so he can live off of government grants (who's profiting from the system?) and wants to ignore the rules he doesn't like. If he wants to speak out, he's free to do so - on his OWN money, not the tax money he's living off of.

"This is about bullies taking our lunch money 'cause they know we can't hit back. Our hands are tied by a lack of numbers a lack of unity and our 501 c3 status."

Give me a break. No one's taking his lunch money. The government is, in fact, giving him grants to live on.

"This continued until one day when a kid made the mistake of implying that my mother was shall we say promiscuous, and I finally hit back. Hard. Knocked the kid on his ass and left actual dents in his face. (He later tried to blame the dents on rings, but everyone knows I don't wear jewelry.)"

Who's the bully? He's advocating solving problems by force and objects to a system of laws and courts. Hmmmm.

"fight our common enemy (the system) "

Maybe he needs to think of the millions of kids who wouldn't have food to eat or clothes to wear if child support laws couldn't be enforced.

"But we're not even talking about lunch monies here-- these bastards are taking our children and sending us the bill for it. They have been doing so with impunity for several decades now."

Yes, it's easy to make sensationalistic claims. Maybe if he spent his energy collecting data to support his position rather than whining, he might get somewhere.

There are very few people who argue that fathers shouldn't be involved in their kids' lives. There are also few who believe that fathers shouldn't have custody. The battle is over nuances, not over blatant bias. This type of lunatic fringe radical article does infinitely more harm than good.

[gemini3]

I agree mist...  While I do feel that the system is flawed.  I don't think that it's that way intentionally to harm a certain group of people (in this case NCP's).  Laws can't be written to address every possible nuance or gray area that may be encountered by every individual.

I think that the government is seeking to protect it's own interests in developing the child support laws, because guess who's clothing, housing, and feeding most of the ones who aren't getting support.  The government.  An estimated 69% of the children who are elidgible for welfare benefits live in a single parent household.  They want to offset their expenditures as much as possible, and that means getting money from the NCP, plain and simple.

[John-J-Jay]

I disagree with "SOME" of the post by mist and gemini.

"Maybe he needs to think of the millions of kids who wouldn't have food to eat or clothes to wear if child support laws couldn't be enforced."

i'm the custodial parent and my ex hasn't paid in 48 months and owes me around $50,000, I can't get a court date in 9 months and have spent $9000 trying to collect $50000. You say there are laws to collect and enforce, not if you are the man getting the support pmts.


"I think that the government is seeking to protect it's own interests in developing the child support laws, because guess who's clothing, housing, and feeding most of the ones who aren't getting support. The government. '

it's costing me a fortune to collect what my child is entitled to yet you know the rest of the story.

The system is against men who are either the custodial parent and agaisnt men who are the NCP.  

John J.

[SPARC Admin]

Mr. Doubtfire:

Please don't "spam" the message boards with links like this. Posting to one or two boards is fine, posting to them all is not. Thanks for your cooperation.

[mistoffolees]

>I disagree with "SOME" of the post by mist and gemini.
>
>"Maybe he needs to think of the millions of kids who wouldn't
>have food to eat or clothes to wear if child support laws
>couldn't be enforced."
>
>i'm the custodial parent and my ex hasn't paid in 48 months
>and owes me around $50,000, I can't get a court date in 9
>months and have spent $9000 trying to collect $50000. You say
>there are laws to collect and enforce, not if you are the man
>getting the support pmts.
>
>

Even accepting that at face value, do you think it would be any better if the government didn't have laws making it possible for you to attempt to collect that money? Do you think you'd have the $50 K today if the government said "we're going to stop trying to collect child support. Do whatever you want"?

[John-J-Jay]

Mist,
I understand you point and I'd say 99% of the time you are correct and have great points. However, what amount my ex owes me is still owed and I haven't collected one red cent. So I'm not sure the government cares about back child support from a mother because it's not the norm.
Thanks
John

[mistoffolees]

>Mist,
>I understand you point and I'd say 99% of the time you are
>correct and have great points. However, what amount my ex owes
>me is still owed and I haven't collected one red cent. So I'm
>not sure the government cares about back child support from a
>mother because it's not the norm.
>Thanks
>John
>

You didn't answer the question.

Do you think you'd be any more likely to collect if the OP got their way and the government completely backed out of the child support enforcement business?

Or, do you think that some of the 99% for whom the system works would be worse off if the government stopped collecting support?

Which one is it?

[John-J-Jay]

your missing the point. it's a sexually biased system. the system works when a dad owes the $$ but it's opposite when a mother owes. It's a great system for mothers but for dads????

[mistoffolees]

>your missing the point. it's a sexually biased system. the
>system works when a dad owes the $$ but it's opposite when a
>mother owes. It's a great system for mothers but for dads????

I'd be interested in seeing your evidence to support that.

Let's see a non-biased survey comparing child support enforcement rates for parents of both sexes based on income.

Don't confuse anecdotes with evidence.