Hi everyone

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

Hi,
Totally agree with you that the system is unfair, we are not going to
beat them though, I feel for you,
Are you interested in taking a look at this guy who coaches people to
make 6 figure incomes on line,
www.theoriginalmaverickmoneymaker.com

Let me know what you think

Dusty

2009-06-28 16:39:25 UTC

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

<snip>

Are you interested in taking a look at this guy who coaches people to
make 6 figure incomes on line

<bull shit snipped>
-----------------------------------
ROTFLMAO!!!

I was wondering when you'd get to the advert.. "Gee, how much does it
cost..?"
Another get rich quick scheme. Pah-lease. Hell all ya gotta to do is get
hired by The One and there's you friggin' 6-figures! Of course, his hand is
up your ass telling you what to say, but what the hell, you're making money
when no one else is. To bad it's all from taxing the "rich".. you know,
anyone that makes $250K of more.

I'm just waiting for the trickle down to happen and then the $250K threshold
will drop to anyone making over $25K...

ruth2262

2009-06-30 06:21:56 UTC

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

<snip>
Are you interested in taking a look at this guy who coaches people to
make 6 figure incomes on line
<bull shit snipped>
-----------------------------------
ROTFLMAO!!!
I was wondering when you'd get to the advert.. "Gee, how much does it
cost..?"
Another get rich quick scheme. Pah-lease. Hell all ya gotta to do is get
hired by The One and there's you friggin' 6-figures! Of course, his hand is
up your ass telling you what to say, but what the hell, you're making money
when no one else is. To bad it's all from taxing the "rich".. you know,
anyone that makes $250K of more.
I'm just waiting for the trickle down to happen and then the $250K threshold
will drop to anyone making over $25K...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You sound bitter,

Dusty

2009-06-30 18:54:06 UTC

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

<snip>
Are you interested in taking a look at this guy who coaches people to
make 6 figure incomes on line
<bull shit snipped>
-----------------------------------
ROTFLMAO!!!
I was wondering when you'd get to the advert.. "Gee, how much does it
cost..?"
Another get rich quick scheme. Pah-lease. Hell all ya gotta to do is get
hired by The One and there's you friggin' 6-figures! Of course, his hand
is
up your ass telling you what to say, but what the hell, you're making money
when no one else is. To bad it's all from taxing the "rich".. you know,
anyone that makes $250K of more.
I'm just waiting for the trickle down to happen and then the $250K threshold
will drop to anyone making over $25K...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You sound bitter,
--------------------------
Who me? Naw, I ain't bitter. Just cuz some smart-ass politician waves his
finger at me and every other male who's been raped in divorce court and
tells us to 'man up'. I'd love to have 5 minutes with the jackass and tell
him what I really think of his so-called "Responsible Fatherhood" crap.

I friggin' hate Liberals.

2009-06-30 20:38:59 UTC

Liberals, the ones with a problem for every solution!

Lets face it, Americans need a nanny state to exist.

Post by ruth2262

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

<snip>
Are you interested in taking a look at this guy who coaches people to
make 6 figure incomes on line
<bull shit snipped>
-----------------------------------
ROTFLMAO!!!
I was wondering when you'd get to the advert.. "Gee, how much does it
cost..?"
Another get rich quick scheme. Pah-lease. Hell all ya gotta to do is get
hired by The One and there's you friggin' 6-figures! Of course, his hand
is
up your ass telling you what to say, but what the hell, you're making money
when no one else is. To bad it's all from taxing the "rich".. you know,
anyone that makes $250K of more.
I'm just waiting for the trickle down to happen and then the $250K threshold
will drop to anyone making over $25K...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You sound bitter,
--------------------------
Who me? Naw, I ain't bitter. Just cuz some smart-ass politician waves
his finger at me and every other male who's been raped in divorce court
and tells us to 'man up'. I'd love to have 5 minutes with the jackass and
tell him what I really think of his so-called "Responsible Fatherhood"
crap.
I friggin' hate Liberals.

Jeff Strickland

2009-07-01 00:21:35 UTC

Post by Dusty
--------------------------
Who me? Naw, I ain't bitter. Just cuz some smart-ass politician waves
his finger at me and every other male who's been raped in divorce court
and tells us to 'man up'. I'd love to have 5 minutes with the jackass
and tell him what I really think of his so-called "Responsible
Fatherhood" crap.

Responsible Fatherhood is not crap.

If you don't want to pay for a lifetime of sausage, don't take your salami
out.

If you are out there swinging your salami around, then you're gonna end up
with kids you hafta pay for.

The problem you have (not YOU, but the guy that posted this crap that you
dug up) is that you let your little head drive the bus, and now you're
bitching about the stops made along the way. I have absolutely no sympathy
for your plight, and very little sympathy for the plight of anybody that
would

Ted

2009-07-01 01:19:53 UTC

Responsible Fatherhood is not crap.

No it isn't. But so-called "Responsible Fatherhood" is.

Post by Jeff Strickland
If you don't want to pay for a lifetime of sausage, don't take your salami
out.

That's a cute figure of speech! You have avoided a direct reference
to a disgusting practice!

Post by Jeff Strickland
If you are out there swinging your salami around, then you're gonna end up
with kids you hafta pay for.

Well, not quite. You're gonna end up with kids you have a
responsibility for. Why do you cut that down to just making cash
payments?

Post by Jeff Strickland
The problem you have (not YOU, but the guy that posted this crap that you
dug up) is that you let your little head drive the bus,

Once again, mention of the disgusting practice adroitly avoided!

Post by Jeff Strickland
and now you're
bitching about the stops made along the way.

Those stops are in bad places.

Post by Jeff Strickland
I have absolutely no sympathy
for your plight, and very little sympathy for the plight of anybody that
would

Your indolence helps a corrupt system to flourish.

2009-07-01 17:26:05 UTC

That's nothing compared to what you're going to have to pay for!
Lets see how you like it when the government starts taking more money out of
your pay for the debt you incurred?

God knows, you all squeal like little pigs when the gas goes up by 5 cents a
gallon?
Stop whining about paying higher taxes and having no pension when you get
too old to work.

Phil #3

2009-07-01 22:25:14 UTC

Responsible Fatherhood is not crap.

The crap about "responsible fatherhood" coming from politician is, what they
mean by the phrase is paying the mother too much money that she is free to
use in any way she chooses; for the children or not. This political football
has nothing to do with fatherhood, only the liberal dream of sharing the
wealth (read: Robin Hood syndrome).

Post by Jeff Strickland
If you don't want to pay for a lifetime of sausage, don't take your salami
out.

Doesn't matter. There are many men paying "child support" to women they've
never even met and are totally unrelated to the children.
It isn't about forcing men to support their children (without going into the
fact that women aren't so forced in any way, shape or form); it's simply
forced socialism within divorced families.

Post by Jeff Strickland
If you are out there swinging your salami around, then you're gonna end up
with kids you hafta pay for.

Perhaps. Most sexual unions do NOT produce a pregnancy. Also, no man has the
abilty to decide if a pregnancy should be ended. Mothers have special
options to prevent their becoming a parent whether by abortion, legal
abandonment or adoption. They also have the option of keeping the child and
demanding others finance her choice.

Post by Jeff Strickland
The problem you have (not YOU, but the guy that posted this crap that you
dug up) is that you let your little head drive the bus, and now you're
bitching about the stops made along the way. I have absolutely no sympathy
for your plight, and very little sympathy for the plight of anybody that
would

No, the bitching is about the way fathers are treated as second (or third)
class citizens then lambasted by the ignorant when they cannot shit $100
bills on demand.

Phil #3

2009-07-02 02:30:11 UTC

Post by Jeff Strickland
The problem you have (not YOU, but the guy that posted this crap that you
dug up) is that you let your little head drive the bus, and now you're
bitching about the stops made along the way. I have absolutely no
sympathy for your plight, and very little sympathy for the plight of
anybody that would

No, the bitching is about the way fathers are treated as second (or third)
class citizens then lambasted by the ignorant when they cannot shit $100
bills on demand.
Phil #3

Would like to see these idiots try paying $900 per month when they're laid
off.
They seem to scream bloody murder when they don't get their stimulus check
or help with their mortgage that they can't afford.

Amerwika is one big deadbeat nation of whiners!!!!

Clave

2009-07-02 02:58:06 UTC

"DB" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message news:eRU2m.10144$***@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...

<...>

Post by DB
Amerwika is one big deadbeat nation of whiners!!!!

..., he whined.

Phil #3

2009-07-03 19:54:07 UTC

Post by Jeff Strickland
The problem you have (not YOU, but the guy that posted this crap that
you dug up) is that you let your little head drive the bus, and now
you're bitching about the stops made along the way. I have absolutely no
sympathy for your plight, and very little sympathy for the plight of
anybody that would

No, the bitching is about the way fathers are treated as second (or
third) class citizens then lambasted by the ignorant when they cannot
shit $100 bills on demand.
Phil #3

Hell, they scream and cry about how hard it is to make it when gasoline goes
up $2/gallon. Imagine how they'd feel if they were forced to buy gas for
their entire trailer park.
Phil #3

RogerN

2009-07-02 10:49:50 UTC

Responsible Fatherhood is not crap.
If you don't want to pay for a lifetime of sausage, don't take your salami
out.
If you are out there swinging your salami around, then you're gonna end up
with kids you hafta pay for.
The problem you have (not YOU, but the guy that posted this crap that you
dug up) is that you let your little head drive the bus, and now you're
bitching about the stops made along the way. I have absolutely no sympathy
for your plight, and very little sympathy for the plight of anybody that
would

But the problem is that not everybody that pays child support is from
"swinging your salami around". I married my "first love", I was faithful in
my marriage. She had a one night stand while I was away on training, I
found out about it, we were very near divorce. Then she wanted to be
forgiven and wanted our marriage to be repaired. Then she wanted kids, we
had kids, then she wanted another man and we divorced. At the time I didn't
know about the other man, she claimed that she wanted the divorce "for the
children" because we fought, but all we fought about was her wanting a
divorce. Her "other man" that was so great was an alcoholic and raped one
of my daughters. Meanwhile I'm stuck paying CS to the lying cheating mother
while she buys herself a sport car and the kids have to get jobs to work
after school to pay their own way.

I suspect my youngest daughter that I pay CS on is probably not mine but
even if I proved it with DNA testing, I wouldn't be able to stop the CS
payments on her because that's the way the unfair laws work. You can be a
perfect husband and father (I'm not claiming I was perfect, just
illustrating how the law works against men), have a wife that cheats and
gets pregnant from her affairs, then divorces and the man will have to pay
for those kids that aren't his until they are at least 18 because he is
guilty of believing his lying wife. Even if DNA evidence proves the kids
aren't his, he will be punished for his cheating wife. In many instances
the man gets punished for what the woman did.

RogerN

2009-07-02 15:40:21 UTC

Some think that anyone paying child support is a deadbeat, your story only
ruins their image
of a deadbeat.

Responsible Fatherhood is not crap.
If you don't want to pay for a lifetime of sausage, don't take your
salami out.
If you are out there swinging your salami around, then you're gonna end
up with kids you hafta pay for.
The problem you have (not YOU, but the guy that posted this crap that you
dug up) is that you let your little head drive the bus, and now you're
bitching about the stops made along the way. I have absolutely no
sympathy for your plight, and very little sympathy for the plight of
anybody that would

But the problem is that not everybody that pays child support is from
"swinging your salami around". I married my "first love", I was faithful
in my marriage. She had a one night stand while I was away on training, I
found out about it, we were very near divorce. Then she wanted to be
forgiven and wanted our marriage to be repaired. Then she wanted kids, we
had kids, then she wanted another man and we divorced. At the time I
didn't know about the other man, she claimed that she wanted the divorce
"for the children" because we fought, but all we fought about was her
wanting a divorce. Her "other man" that was so great was an alcoholic and
raped one of my daughters. Meanwhile I'm stuck paying CS to the lying
cheating mother while she buys herself a sport car and the kids have to
get jobs to work after school to pay their own way.
I suspect my youngest daughter that I pay CS on is probably not mine but
even if I proved it with DNA testing, I wouldn't be able to stop the CS
payments on her because that's the way the unfair laws work. You can be a
perfect husband and father (I'm not claiming I was perfect, just
illustrating how the law works against men), have a wife that cheats and
gets pregnant from her affairs, then divorces and the man will have to pay
for those kids that aren't his until they are at least 18 because he is
guilty of believing his lying wife. Even if DNA evidence proves the kids
aren't his, he will be punished for his cheating wife. In many instances
the man gets punished for what the woman did.
RogerN

Dusty

2009-07-02 21:02:16 UTC

Quite true, DB.

Roger, stop it with not fitting into the mold that Trip-X (and others) has
set up so you can fit their image of a deadbeat - you may break her mold!
She'd cry and then we'd never hear an end to her nagging whine.

Jeesh, Rog, what the hell were you thinking?? ;)

Post by DB
Some think that anyone paying child support is a deadbeat, your story only
ruins their image
of a deadbeat.

Post by Dusty
--------------------------
Who me? Naw, I ain't bitter. Just cuz some smart-ass politician
waves his finger at me and every other male who's been raped in
divorce court and tells us to 'man up'. I'd love to have 5 minutes
with the jackass and tell him what I really think of his so-called
"Responsible Fatherhood" crap.

Responsible Fatherhood is not crap.
If you don't want to pay for a lifetime of sausage, don't take your
salami out.
If you are out there swinging your salami around, then you're gonna end
up with kids you hafta pay for.
The problem you have (not YOU, but the guy that posted this crap that
you dug up) is that you let your little head drive the bus, and now
you're bitching about the stops made along the way. I have absolutely no
sympathy for your plight, and very little sympathy for the plight of
anybody that would

But the problem is that not everybody that pays child support is from
"swinging your salami around". I married my "first love", I was faithful
in my marriage. She had a one night stand while I was away on training,
I found out about it, we were very near divorce. Then she wanted to be
forgiven and wanted our marriage to be repaired. Then she wanted kids,
we had kids, then she wanted another man and we divorced. At the time I
didn't know about the other man, she claimed that she wanted the divorce
"for the children" because we fought, but all we fought about was her
wanting a divorce. Her "other man" that was so great was an alcoholic
and raped one of my daughters. Meanwhile I'm stuck paying CS to the
lying cheating mother while she buys herself a sport car and the kids
have to get jobs to work after school to pay their own way.
I suspect my youngest daughter that I pay CS on is probably not mine but
even if I proved it with DNA testing, I wouldn't be able to stop the CS
payments on her because that's the way the unfair laws work. You can be
a perfect husband and father (I'm not claiming I was perfect, just
illustrating how the law works against men), have a wife that cheats and
gets pregnant from her affairs, then divorces and the man will have to
pay for those kids that aren't his until they are at least 18 because he
is guilty of believing his lying wife. Even if DNA evidence proves the
kids aren't his, he will be punished for his cheating wife. In many
instances the man gets punished for what the woman did.
RogerN

RogerN

2009-07-02 22:56:23 UTC

Post by Dusty
Quite true, DB.
Roger, stop it with not fitting into the mold that Trip-X (and others) has
set up so you can fit their image of a deadbeat - you may break her mold!
She'd cry and then we'd never hear an end to her nagging whine.
Jeesh, Rog, what the hell were you thinking?? ;)

Post by DB
Some think that anyone paying child support is a deadbeat, your story
only ruins their image
of a deadbeat.

I'm sorry, I'll throw some pancake mix on my wife so I least I can be guilty
of battering my wife :-)

Seriously though, the law is set up so that the man is guilty without a
trial and is treated like he did her wrong. What I regret is not divorcing
my ex after her unfaithfulness. She "repented" and I was told that the
right thing to do was forgive her. I knew she had a lying problem (you
could tell when she was lying, her lips move :-) and I didn't think she was
worth trusting, but I did what I told was right. Now I live paying for that
mistake every week.

You know what my ex put behind her ears to attract men? Her ankles!

RogerN

Chris

2009-07-04 17:06:37 UTC

"Child support", for a man, is legally being forced to pay for a choice that
is legally IMPOSSIBLE for him to make.

Post by Dusty
Quite true, DB.
Roger, stop it with not fitting into the mold that Trip-X (and others)
has set up so you can fit their image of a deadbeat - you may break her
mold! She'd cry and then we'd never hear an end to her nagging whine.
Jeesh, Rog, what the hell were you thinking?? ;)

Post by DB
Some think that anyone paying child support is a deadbeat, your story
only ruins their image
of a deadbeat.

I'm sorry, I'll throw some pancake mix on my wife so I least I can be
guilty of battering my wife :-)
Seriously though, the law is set up so that the man is guilty without a
trial and is treated like he did her wrong. What I regret is not
divorcing my ex after her unfaithfulness. She "repented" and I was told
that the right thing to do was forgive her. I knew she had a lying
problem (you could tell when she was lying, her lips move :-) and I didn't
think she was worth trusting, but I did what I told was right. Now I live
paying for that mistake every week.

You made NO mistake, and you DID do the right thing. Hat's off to you! What
you are paying for is HER "mistake", not yours.

Post by RogerN
You know what my ex put behind her ears to attract men? Her ankles!
RogerN

Phil #3

2009-07-03 19:57:55 UTC

Responsible Fatherhood is not crap.
If you don't want to pay for a lifetime of sausage, don't take your
salami out.
If you are out there swinging your salami around, then you're gonna end
up with kids you hafta pay for.
The problem you have (not YOU, but the guy that posted this crap that you
dug up) is that you let your little head drive the bus, and now you're
bitching about the stops made along the way. I have absolutely no
sympathy for your plight, and very little sympathy for the plight of
anybody that would

But the problem is that not everybody that pays child support is from
"swinging your salami around". I married my "first love", I was faithful
in my marriage. She had a one night stand while I was away on training, I
found out about it, we were very near divorce. Then she wanted to be
forgiven and wanted our marriage to be repaired. Then she wanted kids, we
had kids, then she wanted another man and we divorced. At the time I
didn't know about the other man, she claimed that she wanted the divorce
"for the children" because we fought, but all we fought about was her
wanting a divorce. Her "other man" that was so great was an alcoholic and
raped one of my daughters. Meanwhile I'm stuck paying CS to the lying
cheating mother while she buys herself a sport car and the kids have to
get jobs to work after school to pay their own way.
I suspect my youngest daughter that I pay CS on is probably not mine but
even if I proved it with DNA testing, I wouldn't be able to stop the CS
payments on her because that's the way the unfair laws work. You can be a
perfect husband and father (I'm not claiming I was perfect, just
illustrating how the law works against men), have a wife that cheats and
gets pregnant from her affairs, then divorces and the man will have to pay
for those kids that aren't his until they are at least 18 because he is
guilty of believing his lying wife. Even if DNA evidence proves the kids
aren't his, he will be punished for his cheating wife. In many instances
the man gets punished for what the woman did.
RogerN

Roger, the liberal socialists (I know, reduntant) here don't understand any
of that, even though it happens often all across the US. They actually think
that even with DNA proof to the contrary, the putative father is somehow
magically related to the child OR they feel the law is justified in forcing
a stranger to finance the choice of the children's mother.
Phil #3

Chris

2009-07-04 17:06:07 UTC

Post by Dusty
--------------------------
Who me? Naw, I ain't bitter. Just cuz some smart-ass politician
waves his finger at me and every other male who's been raped in
divorce court and tells us to 'man up'. I'd love to have 5 minutes
with the jackass and tell him what I really think of his so-called
"Responsible Fatherhood" crap.

Responsible Fatherhood is not crap.
If you don't want to pay for a lifetime of sausage, don't take your
salami out.
If you are out there swinging your salami around, then you're gonna end
up with kids you hafta pay for.
The problem you have (not YOU, but the guy that posted this crap that
you dug up) is that you let your little head drive the bus, and now
you're bitching about the stops made along the way. I have absolutely no
sympathy for your plight, and very little sympathy for the plight of
anybody that would

But the problem is that not everybody that pays child support is from
"swinging your salami around". I married my "first love", I was faithful
in my marriage. She had a one night stand while I was away on training,
I found out about it, we were very near divorce. Then she wanted to be
forgiven and wanted our marriage to be repaired. Then she wanted kids,
we had kids, then she wanted another man and we divorced. At the time I
didn't know about the other man, she claimed that she wanted the divorce
"for the children" because we fought, but all we fought about was her
wanting a divorce. Her "other man" that was so great was an alcoholic
and raped one of my daughters. Meanwhile I'm stuck paying CS to the
lying cheating mother while she buys herself a sport car and the kids
have to get jobs to work after school to pay their own way.
I suspect my youngest daughter that I pay CS on is probably not mine but
even if I proved it with DNA testing, I wouldn't be able to stop the CS
payments on her because that's the way the unfair laws work. You can be
a perfect husband and father (I'm not claiming I was perfect, just
illustrating how the law works against men), have a wife that cheats and
gets pregnant from her affairs, then divorces and the man will have to
pay for those kids that aren't his until they are at least 18 because he
is guilty of believing his lying wife. Even if DNA evidence proves the
kids aren't his, he will be punished for his cheating wife. In many
instances the man gets punished for what the woman did.
RogerN

Roger, the liberal socialists (I know, reduntant) here don't understand
any of that, even though it happens often all across the US. They actually
think that even with DNA proof to the contrary, the putative father is
somehow magically related to the child OR they feel the law is justified
in forcing a stranger to finance the choice of the children's mother.
Phil #3

My question has always been "if positive DNA causes a man to have to pay,
then how come negative DNA does not exonerate him"? In other words, why use
DNA in the FIRST place?

--
"Child support", for a man, is legally being forced to pay for a choice that
legally is IMPOSSIBLE for him to make.

Bob W

2009-07-04 19:27:13 UTC

Post by Chris
My question has always been "if positive DNA causes a man to have to pay,
then how come negative DNA does not exonerate him"? In other words, why
use DNA in the FIRST place?

Federal cash incentives to the states are based on several performance
factors. One of those factors is Paternity Establishments.

The answer to you question is - States are compensated for using DNA to
establish paternity and set up new CS caes. There are no financial
incentives to close out cases or to use DNA in any other way.

The really onerous implication in this process is for cases where paternity
is voluntarily acknowledged or through presumption (as in marriage) and then
DNA proves later the man is not the biological father. It is in those cases
where men are forced into paying CS for someone else's children and the
mother gets off scott free for her misrepresentation of who fathered the
child.

Phil #3

2009-07-08 19:45:46 UTC

Post by Bob W

Post by Chris
My question has always been "if positive DNA causes a man to have to pay,
then how come negative DNA does not exonerate him"? In other words, why
use DNA in the FIRST place?

Federal cash incentives to the states are based on several performance
factors. One of those factors is Paternity Establishments.
The answer to you question is - States are compensated for using DNA to
establish paternity and set up new CS caes. There are no financial
incentives to close out cases or to use DNA in any other way.
The really onerous implication in this process is for cases where
paternity is voluntarily acknowledged or through presumption (as in
marriage) and then DNA proves later the man is not the biological father.
It is in those cases where men are forced into paying CS for someone
else's children and the mother gets off scott free for her
misrepresentation of who fathered the child.

Not only gets off scott free but profits from her dishonesty as well and
with the state's permission.
Phil #3

XXX@XXX.COM

2009-07-01 01:26:41 UTC

Post by ruth2262

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

<snip>
Are you interested in taking a look at this guy who coaches people to
make 6 figure incomes on line
<bull shit snipped>
-----------------------------------
ROTFLMAO!!!
I was wondering when you'd get to the advert.. "Gee, how much does it
cost..?"
Another get rich quick scheme. Pah-lease. Hell all ya gotta to do is get
hired by The One and there's you friggin' 6-figures! Of course, his hand
is
up your ass telling you what to say, but what the hell, you're making money
when no one else is. To bad it's all from taxing the "rich".. you know,
anyone that makes $250K of more.
I'm just waiting for the trickle down to happen and then the $250K threshold
will drop to anyone making over $25K...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Except you constantly whine like one. Go figure.

XXX@XXX.COM

2009-07-01 01:25:05 UTC

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

Bob W

2009-07-01 02:15:23 UTC

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

Here is a funny thought, people who work hard and avoid layoffs are
forced to fund you and your child support. Are you planning to pay us
back? prove your worth somehow? Should I start a campaign for people
who never get unemployment benefits to cut the rest of you useless
unemployed leeches off? Should I be able to decide that you can live
on 12 cents a day just so I can save a few dollars a week for myself?
I think so. Go collect your welfare while the rest of us work to
support ourselves and our families.

======

Once again you have proven you know absolutely nothing about the CS system,
how it works, and what it does to support women.

In FY2008 there were 15.7 million CS cases. Only 12.7% of those cases were
related to public assistance cases. The other 87.3% were non-public
assistance cases where hard working fathers (90+% of the people with orders)
are required to pay CS.

Also in FY2008 $26.561 billion was collected. Only 3.7% of that money went
to current public assistance cases. The other 96.3% collected went to
non-public assistance cases.

Your continued references to CS payor fathers being predominantly welfare
recipients is just not borne out by the facts. In fact, it is the CP
mothers who are the welfare recipients in the vast majority of cases and the
fathers have no say in whether they are on welfare or not.

XXX@XXX.COM

2009-07-01 02:36:13 UTC

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

As have you, you whine day and night about how YOU are forced to
support your children but you never understand anything else.

Post by ***@XXX.COM
In FY2008 there were 15.7 million CS cases. Only 12.7% of those cases were
related to public assistance cases. The other 87.3% were non-public
assistance cases where hard working fathers (90+% of the people with orders)
are required to pay CS.

And you are still responsible for your own children .... crazy how
decency works, it always fucks people like you.

Post by ***@XXX.COM
Also in FY2008 $26.561 billion was collected. Only 3.7% of that money went
to current public assistance cases. The other 96.3% collected went to
non-public assistance cases.
Your continued references to CS payor fathers being predominantly welfare
recipients is just not borne out by the facts.

Giant lie, check the thread, it was about a guy who got his $139 FROM
A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM

Post by ***@XXX.COM
mothers who are the welfare recipients in the vast majority of cases and the
fathers have no say in whether they are on welfare or not.- Hide quoted text -

When the moms get welfare the dad pays nothing. Sorry deadbeat you are
a notch below the hooker who doesn't pay her taxes on normal people's
radar.

Pay your bills and be less stupid ...... my unsolicited advice

Bob W

2009-07-01 03:04:12 UTC

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

As have you, you whine day and night about how YOU are forced to
support your children but you never understand anything else.

======

I understand I no longer have a CS obligation and my CS case has been closed
for years because I got a Full Satisfaction of Judgment issued by the state
CS administration and processed by the local county court.

======

And you are still responsible for your own children .... crazy how
decency works, it always fucks people like you.

======

I have no "legal responsibility" for my children as defined by state law. I
do have a personal obligation to them that is based on my moral values and
that obligation continues to this day.

======

Giant lie, check the thread, it was about a guy who got his $139 FROM
A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM

======

One freakin' post doesn't alter the fact there are billions of CS dollars
being collected from non-government program earnings.

======

Post by ***@XXX.COM
mothers who are the welfare recipients in the vast majority of cases and the
fathers have no say in whether they are on welfare or not.- Hide quoted text -

When the moms get welfare the dad pays nothing. Sorry deadbeat you are
a notch below the hooker who doesn't pay her taxes on normal people's
radar.

======

You really have to stop making up CS theories to suit your agenda. Every
mother who goes on welfare is required by federal and state law to identify
the father of her child(ren) so the state can go after the father to
reimburse the federal and state governments for the welfare money they pay
the mother. Failure to cooperate with the CS program results in the mother
being denied public assistance benefits.

======

Pay your bills and be less stupid ...... my unsolicited advice

======

Too bad it missed the mark because your assumptions were so far off base.

2009-07-01 17:32:57 UTC

"***@XXX.COM" <***@aol.com> wrote in

When the moms get welfare the dad pays nothing. Sorry deadbeat you are
a notch below the hooker who doesn't pay her taxes on normal people's
radar.

Pay your bills and be less stupid ...... my unsolicited advice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Americans are deadbeats, they don't make enough to pay back the debt
they accumulated!
Your grand children with thank you for the burden you have placed on them.
What a legacy, you will be known as the deadbeat generation, please make
check payable to Master Yin!

Phil #3

2009-07-01 22:31:47 UTC

Post by ***@XXX.COM
When the moms get welfare the dad pays nothing. Sorry deadbeat you are
a notch below the hooker who doesn't pay her taxes on normal people's
radar.
Pay your bills and be less stupid ...... my unsolicited advice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Americans are deadbeats, they don't make enough to pay back the debt
they accumulated!
Your grand children with thank you for the burden you have placed on them.
What a legacy, you will be known as the deadbeat generation, please make
check payable to Master Yin!

As you know, XXX is an idiot who thinks 1% of the population is responsible
for 100% of welfare cases because they don't pay the mother enough to live
on properly. It's what you would expect from a liberal socialist democrat ?
But I repeat myself.
Phil #3

2009-07-02 15:42:38 UTC

Post by ***@XXX.COM
When the moms get welfare the dad pays nothing. Sorry deadbeat you are
a notch below the hooker who doesn't pay her taxes on normal people's
radar.
Pay your bills and be less stupid ...... my unsolicited advice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Americans are deadbeats, they don't make enough to pay back the debt
they accumulated!
Your grand children with thank you for the burden you have placed on
them. What a legacy, you will be known as the deadbeat generation, please
make check payable to Master Yin!

As you know, XXX is an idiot who thinks 1% of the population is
responsible for 100% of welfare cases because they don't pay the mother
enough to live on properly. It's what you would expect from a liberal
socialist democrat ? But I repeat myself.
Phil #3

Try to forgive her Phil, she is from the weaker sex, the ones that still
need support from a man!

Phil #3

2009-07-03 20:02:17 UTC

Post by ***@XXX.COM
When the moms get welfare the dad pays nothing. Sorry deadbeat you are
a notch below the hooker who doesn't pay her taxes on normal people's
radar.
Pay your bills and be less stupid ...... my unsolicited advice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Americans are deadbeats, they don't make enough to pay back the debt
they accumulated!
Your grand children with thank you for the burden you have placed on
them. What a legacy, you will be known as the deadbeat generation,
please make check payable to Master Yin!

As you know, XXX is an idiot who thinks 1% of the population is
responsible for 100% of welfare cases because they don't pay the mother
enough to live on properly. It's what you would expect from a liberal
socialist democrat ? But I repeat myself.
Phil #3

Try to forgive her Phil, she is from the weaker sex, the ones that still
need support from a man!

Know what they call an "independent woman"?
A woman that obtains a man's money and/or property without having to live
with him.
Phil #3

XXX@XXX.COM

2009-07-01 02:43:38 UTC

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

Here is a funny thought, people who work hard and avoid layoffs are
forced to fund you and your child support. Are you planning to pay us
back? prove your worth somehow? Should I start a campaign for people
who never get unemployment benefits to cut the rest of you useless
unemployed leeches off? Should I be able to decide that you can live
on 12 cents a day just so I can save a few dollars a week for myself?
I think so. Go collect your welfare while the rest of us work to
support ourselves and our families.
======
Once again you have proven you know absolutely nothing about the CS system,
how it works, and what it does to support women.
In FY2008 there were 15.7 million CS cases. Only 12.7% of those cases were
related to public assistance cases. The other 87.3% were non-public
assistance cases where hard working fathers (90+% of the people with orders)
are required to pay CS.
Also in FY2008 $26.561 billion was collected. Only 3.7% of that money went
to current public assistance cases. The other 96.3% collected went to
non-public assistance cases.
Your continued references to CS payor fathers being predominantly welfare
recipients is just not borne out by the facts. In fact, it is the CP
mothers who are the welfare recipients in the vast majority of cases and the
fathers have no say in whether they are on welfare or not.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

2009-07-01 17:35:58 UTC

Obama think you are a drain on his society, start paying your fair share of
the debt before you start calling anyone a dead beat! How about donating
30% of your paycheck to the cause?

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

Here is a funny thought, people who work hard and avoid layoffs are
forced to fund you and your child support. Are you planning to pay us
back? prove your worth somehow? Should I start a campaign for people
who never get unemployment benefits to cut the rest of you useless
unemployed leeches off? Should I be able to decide that you can live
on 12 cents a day just so I can save a few dollars a week for myself?
I think so. Go collect your welfare while the rest of us work to
support ourselves and our families.
======
Once again you have proven you know absolutely nothing about the CS system,
how it works, and what it does to support women.
In FY2008 there were 15.7 million CS cases. Only 12.7% of those cases were
related to public assistance cases. The other 87.3% were non-public
assistance cases where hard working fathers (90+% of the people with orders)
are required to pay CS.
Also in FY2008 $26.561 billion was collected. Only 3.7% of that money went
to current public assistance cases. The other 96.3% collected went to
non-public assistance cases.
Your continued references to CS payor fathers being predominantly welfare
recipients is just not borne out by the facts. In fact, it is the CP
mothers who are the welfare recipients in the vast majority of cases and the
fathers have no say in whether they are on welfare or not.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Phil #3

2009-07-01 22:33:38 UTC

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

Here is a funny thought, people who work hard and avoid layoffs are
forced to fund you and your child support. Are you planning to pay us
back? prove your worth somehow? Should I start a campaign for people
who never get unemployment benefits to cut the rest of you useless
unemployed leeches off? Should I be able to decide that you can live
on 12 cents a day just so I can save a few dollars a week for myself?
I think so. Go collect your welfare while the rest of us work to
support ourselves and our families.
======
Once again you have proven you know absolutely nothing about the CS system,
how it works, and what it does to support women.
In FY2008 there were 15.7 million CS cases. Only 12.7% of those cases were
related to public assistance cases. The other 87.3% were non-public
assistance cases where hard working fathers (90+% of the people with orders)
are required to pay CS.
Also in FY2008 $26.561 billion was collected. Only 3.7% of that money went
to current public assistance cases. The other 96.3% collected went to
non-public assistance cases.
Your continued references to CS payor fathers being predominantly welfare
recipients is just not borne out by the facts. In fact, it is the CP
mothers who are the welfare recipients in the vast majority of cases and the
fathers have no say in whether they are on welfare or not.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You are leeches on society. I'm okay with paying a little more to keep
you from starving, but stop trying to pretend that deadbeat dads are
anything more than drains on society. Sorry leech, most people like
their children.

******************************************

No, that's the mothers who are legally irresponsible for the children they
alone bring into the world and you know it. At least you should know it,
it's been explained to you several times but being an moron, I doubt you
can understand it.
Phil #3

Chris

2009-07-03 14:37:47 UTC

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

Here is a funny thought, people who work hard and avoid layoffs are
forced to fund you and your child support. Are you planning to pay us
back? prove your worth somehow? Should I start a campaign for people
who never get unemployment benefits to cut the rest of you useless
unemployed leeches off? Should I be able to decide that you can live
on 12 cents a day just so I can save a few dollars a week for myself?
I think so. Go collect your welfare while the rest of us work to
support ourselves and our families.
======
Once again you have proven you know absolutely nothing about the CS system,
how it works, and what it does to support women.
In FY2008 there were 15.7 million CS cases. Only 12.7% of those cases were
related to public assistance cases. The other 87.3% were non-public
assistance cases where hard working fathers (90+% of the people with orders)
are required to pay CS.
Also in FY2008 $26.561 billion was collected. Only 3.7% of that money went
to current public assistance cases. The other 96.3% collected went to
non-public assistance cases.
Your continued references to CS payor fathers being predominantly welfare
recipients is just not borne out by the facts. In fact, it is the CP
mothers who are the welfare recipients in the vast majority of cases and the
fathers have no say in whether they are on welfare or not.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You are leeches on society. I'm okay with paying a little more to keep
you from starving, but stop trying to pretend that deadbeat dads are
anything more than drains on society.

*************

What, exactly, do such "deadbeat dads" do that causes a drain on society?

************

Sorry leech, most people like
their children.

Phil #3

2009-07-03 20:03:23 UTC

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

Here is a funny thought, people who work hard and avoid layoffs are
forced to fund you and your child support. Are you planning to pay us
back? prove your worth somehow? Should I start a campaign for people
who never get unemployment benefits to cut the rest of you useless
unemployed leeches off? Should I be able to decide that you can live
on 12 cents a day just so I can save a few dollars a week for myself?
I think so. Go collect your welfare while the rest of us work to
support ourselves and our families.
======
Once again you have proven you know absolutely nothing about the CS system,
how it works, and what it does to support women.
In FY2008 there were 15.7 million CS cases. Only 12.7% of those cases were
related to public assistance cases. The other 87.3% were non-public
assistance cases where hard working fathers (90+% of the people with orders)
are required to pay CS.
Also in FY2008 $26.561 billion was collected. Only 3.7% of that money went
to current public assistance cases. The other 96.3% collected went to
non-public assistance cases.
Your continued references to CS payor fathers being predominantly welfare
recipients is just not borne out by the facts. In fact, it is the CP
mothers who are the welfare recipients in the vast majority of cases and the
fathers have no say in whether they are on welfare or not.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You are leeches on society. I'm okay with paying a little more to keep
you from starving, but stop trying to pretend that deadbeat dads are
anything more than drains on society.
*************
What, exactly, do such "deadbeat dads" do that causes a drain on society?
************
Sorry leech, most people like
their children.

Most fathers do. Mothers, not so much.
Phil #3

RogerN

2009-07-02 10:59:22 UTC

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

/
/Here is a funny thought, people who work hard and avoid layoffs are
/forced to fund you and your child support. Are you planning to pay us
/back? prove your worth somehow? Should I start a campaign for people
/who never get unemployment benefits to cut the rest of you useless
/unemployed leeches off? Should I be able to decide that you can live
/on 12 cents a day just so I can save a few dollars a week for myself?
/I think so. Go collect your welfare while the rest of us work to
/support ourselves and our families.

I'm still paying my CS, my longest layoff was 4 weeks, others were 1 or 2
weeks. I didn't miss a payment and I'm back to working 40-50 hours per
week. I've paid my fair share of other people's unemployment in my 25+
years of working.

RogerN

Phil #3

2009-07-03 20:06:02 UTC

Post by mickeym
Well I hope I can be of help to anyone around

Yes, how do we get reasonable Child support rates based on the child's
basic needs and not the mother's lifestyle?

Or based on imaginary sums the states (courts and/or agencies) makes up.

We have had temporary layoffs at work. While on layoff I was given the
maximum amount for unemployment, and they allow a maximum of $139/wk for
dependants, doesn't mater if you have one or ten children, you get $139/wk
for them, you don't get a penny additional for a spouse. So why do I have
to pay so much more than that for child support. If my income was high
enough, my child support could be set higher than the maximum
unemployment
benefits.
I just thought it seems bad that the government decides $139 per week is
enough no mater how many children you have but they don't go off of that
rule for fathers. They have one rule for what they pay (that they already
took from you) and another rule for what individual has to pay.
RogerN

/
/Here is a funny thought, people who work hard and avoid layoffs are
/forced to fund you and your child support. Are you planning to pay us
/back? prove your worth somehow? Should I start a campaign for people
/who never get unemployment benefits to cut the rest of you useless
/unemployed leeches off? Should I be able to decide that you can live
/on 12 cents a day just so I can save a few dollars a week for myself?
/I think so. Go collect your welfare while the rest of us work to
/support ourselves and our families.
I'm still paying my CS, my longest layoff was 4 weeks, others were 1 or 2
weeks. I didn't miss a payment and I'm back to working 40-50 hours per
week. I've paid my fair share of other people's unemployment in my 25+
years of working.
RogerN

I think a large part of the problem with XXX is that s/he thinks all fathers
who are ordered to pay C$ don't do so and s/he refuses to accept that their
his/her/its prejudice is all that stands in the way of learning.
Phil #3

Chris

2009-07-04 16:37:51 UTC