Child Support as Politics.

In this case "utter nonsense" is defined as heresy that you can not disprove....thing is not everyone can execute the head in the sand maneuver as well you desire, to include you.
[/quote]

It's not defined as heresy it's defined as bollocks.

Until and unless you can prove that which you label bollocks to be false your assertion is meaningless. Considering how often you do such we know that you are part of the A2K crowd that continually puts the label of trash on all ideas that you dont want to deal with and then continue on your merry way. This stupidity on your part largely accounts for your ignorance....it is ignorance by way of the force of will.

That's right you and Bill, and perhaps Spendi, are the only ones who know the truth how all men are oppressed and women are about to take over. It's paranoid ranting from someone who takes himself way too seriously.

You don't have ideas I 'don't want to deal with,' you spout hysteria I can't be bothered with. I don't call you a ******* idiot because I think it's a good piece of rhetoric. I don't respect your 'ideas' because you've said nothing whatsoever to show they deserve respect.

Here in Ky the child support payments are based not only on income but also on the type of job.
It is figured as a percentage of income of the person paying the support.

I have found 3 cases where women have sued sperm donors for child support. Fortunately, state Supreme Courts have struck down the womens attempts at extortion.

I have no problem with a parent paying child support, however paternity must be PROVEN in any child support case.
Also, if a woman refuses to let the father be involved in the childs life, for any reason short of being a convicted pedophile, then the father should not have to pay child support.

And I also believe that if a woman does have a child, against the fathers wishes, then she is not entitled to child support.
Yes, I realize its her body, but why should a man pay for her choice?

In Texas, at least, child support is not tied to visitation. (And I agree; the two are separate issues.)


Physical abuse? Emotional abuse? Neglect?

Can't remember if I posted on the question re sperm donors. Think I was planning to and then got lazy re figuring out where I read something. Still am lazy, but what I read was that there is some website (no link, even to the article, as I said) where they have lists of children from donors. Apparently many have fifty children and some much more. The article was a wake up that with donors and offspring usually limited to a given geographic zone, there would be a lot of future chances for the children to unknowingly meet, have sex, and so on. Now there's a thought that never occurred to me before.

But, back on suing the donors..
somehow I figure there is paperwork involved in that process that makes the donor immune from child support payment.

But.. in a non-usual mode of friends helping out friends so they can have a child, I can imagine sloppy legal stuff could bring future problems.

.

And the women who open their legs and their wombs to such a dead beat man are poor innocent if stupid victims I would assume in your world view!

Sorry in my world view the women should be the ones picking up the tabs for those children not the state.

And if they can't we should just let the children starve? Is that your Utopia?

I am married to a woman who is an independent adult who had done very well in her life and her career indeed.

No one is doing anyone a favor in promoting women as children who are in constant need of protection from the state from evil and all powerful males.

In your example of a man who had father fifty children on many women and did not take care of them and somehow we should feel only only contempt for the man not all those women who cheerfully open their wombs to such a worthless man!!!!

In my example it was one man shagging about fifty women, not one woman shagging fifty men.

If the mother can not take care of those children that she willingly carry to term on her own decision then they should be taken from her and a lean for the total cost of the state raising the children placed against her life time earnings.

She after all is the one who decided to carry those children to term without an agreement of a man to be her partner in that enterprise so she should be the one to pay for their upbringing one way or another.

Either directly by her with her own ongoing earning or by being force by the state to do so over how many years/decades it take to pay the state back.

So what as these women were not rape or so I am assuming and have children willingly by such a dead beat.

Women are the gatekeepers and the deciders of what males will get to fathers the next generation and if those fifty women are fools and poor gatekeepers that is their problem.

And the child's problem.

I don't know exactly what the judgement is based on in NM, but once made, it is a fixed amount unless or until someone goes back to court based on changed circumstances. The actual amount that may be withheld from payroll is 50% regardless of how many Orders to Withhold are in place. Orders from some states may be as high as 55% if payments are delinquent by a certain amount of time.

In companies with a high employee turnover, I've easily handled the company side in fifty cases; possibly over a hundred. The actual amount withheld is a fixed amount based on the order, not a percentage of current income.

There is no stigma attached to having wages withheld, by the way. Currently, all child support orders are forwarded to whatever the individual states call their child support enforcement agencies. New Mexico is very efficient. Texas, as of four years ago, was somewhat sloppy. I haven't worked with other states enough to generalize.

True and that is true for all the good and the bad decisions that parents made concerning their children not just the one where the woman picked out the father to be of her future children.

The woman is the one and the only one that now have the power to decide to carry a pregnancy to term or not carry a pregnancy to term as such women also are the only ones who should have the total responsibility to take care of such children if they did not get an agreement of a male to take part in the enterprise either beforehand of during the pregnancies.

No woman should also have the power to force the responsibilities of parenthood on an unwilling male as long as she knowingly decided to carry to term a child that she know had been conceived by an unwilling man.

The best interests of the child should factor high in the case of divorce, adoption, the cutting of parental rights and so forth, but not in demanding that men pay for children they either never intentionally produced or did not produce. I think it is 16 states now where a husband can cut at any time his obligation to children that his wife has with other men, and zero where a man can avoid obligation for children produced by the woman lying about contraption, it failing, or it being sabotaged.

There is the small problem of men sometimes agreeing to use a condom but then not doing it, or removing it at some point, but the problem is small because the woman is going to know that he came in her, and she has a cheap and easy remedy in the morning after pill.

in this thread you seem very close to taking the position that injustice towards men is OK if it releaves the state of monetary obligations....is this the position you wish to take?

Should we also tolorate injustice towards men in sex law if it promotes more power for women.....ie are the man hating bitch American Feminists right about pushing their vendetta against men for the alleged crimes of our forefathers????

Child Support is calculated by percentage but then it is ordered as a set fixed amount.

As like c/s gets ordered as $300 per month or as $2,000 per month but it is NOT ordered as 25% or 10% or even as 50% of the parent's salary.

Consider we have payroll taxes every pay day and every pay check, and it is always a percentage garnishment.

With Child Support the poorest parents become homeless and are put into jail and lose their jobs and the c/s keeps adding up the set fixed cash demands when there is nothing to take a percentage of.

The USA has some 2 million people in jails and prisons nationwide so we could order them all to pay $300 a month in taxes but it could not be paid, and yet the Child Support demands cash money from dead broke and impoverished parents and claim that as justice and rightful when it is absurd.

And as a result those parents who are pillaged and plundered and degraded have children who are also damaged because the children are a part of their parents.

We do not help children by attacking and degrading and by robbing their parents - no.

Of course not, the state abuses the citizens because they can, because they find it in their interest to do so, "the best interest of the child" is the rationalization used in this case. As we have have talked bout in the sex law threads in sex law the excuse is that men are abusive and women need protecting. As we have talked about in the economic threads it is that the wealthy need more money and if they dont get it they will take the money they have someplace else. In the political threads we talk about how in Washington money talks, and the citizens are ignored except at election time when we are played for chumps.

The abuse of the citizen in child support is real abuse of the citizen and the hands of the state, but it is such a microscopic tip of the iceberg that I find it difficult to get too worked up about it.