Child support as USA politics

by JP Cusick Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:34 pm

First topic message reminder :

I am NOT campaigning here as I just want to discuss such things, but I am a candidate in my Maryland for the US Senate 2012, but if I win then my politics will affect the entire USA.

My point and platform is to radically reform the Child Support laws under federal mandate. Link HERE.

As like the law says the c/s must be taken as a percentage but instead the State Courts only order fixed set amounts which is severely abusive and detrimental to all concerned.

Thereby the laws have unjustly turned parenting into a crime and turned parents into criminals and it destroys the family unit and alienates the children.

The system needs to be stopped or dramatically reformed and yet most people are just determined to pretend that the injustices and ruin are just acceptable conditions.

Child Support claims to be helping children when it is really just playing politics with our society.

So I was wondering if anyone here has any input onto this subject?

by JP Cusick Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:54 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

That's moronic. Parents could claim that molesting their children teaches them to be sexually "complete"...or that starving a child is what God's punishment is for some offense.

We, as a society, have not only the moral authority to dictate what is and is not "acceptable behavior" by parents...we, collectively, have the inherent RIGHT to do so.

Of course that is true in regard to actual physical abuse or harmful neglect or parental incompetence, but those are really separate issues away from the Child Support and Custody laws which divide parents from each other and divides children away from their parents just as its standard working procedure.

People continually try to over-dramatize the reality to justify those evil laws and it is a fraud.

by oftenwrong Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:59 pm

QUOTE: Word study of Biblical Greek, an avocation available to all who possess sufficient scholarship to avail themselves of readily available resources

Some habits never die.

Do I mean habit, or verbal tic? No matter. The medium is the message.

by JP Cusick Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:16 pm

Shirina wrote:
I think you missed this part:

"Mr. Cusick did try to cooperate but the child support enforcement was too severely corrupt. So because of that corruption he was released from jail in a worse condition of homeless and destitute with the child support officials demanding more cash payments regardless of his condition"

However, to Mr. Cusick, I think someone needs to overhaul your biography page. It needs a lot of grammatical work. I would be happy to re-write it for you to give it a better professional-sounding quality. I mean no disrespect by saying this, but like I said: It does need some work.

For instance, the above sentence could be changed to:

"Despite Mr. Cusick's attempts to cooperate with child support officials, the corruption rampant within the system made such cooperation impossible. Instead, he was released from jail in a state of homelessness and destitution, and these factors played no part in deciding how much Mr. Cusick should pay. Even when there was no roof over his head, he was expected to pay increasing amounts of money for child support."

I did get the biography page changed and improved, see it here = Vote JP, Biography Page.

Any other suggestions or critiques are welcome and here invited.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:40 pm

"Of course that is true in regard to actual physical abuse or harmful neglect or parental incompetence, but those are really separate issues away from the Child Support and Custody laws which divide parents from each other and divides children away from their parents just as its standard working procedure.

People continually try to over-dramatize the reality to justify those evil laws and it is a fraud." ~ Windbag

We, the People, have the inherent right to establish laws regulating the behavior of individuals who wish to participate and be members of our society. While some parents may be responsible enough to do what's right, even after a divorce...the vast and overwhelming majority are not; thus, it is in OUR best interest as a society to hold to the fire the feet of those unwilling to fulfill their moral and/or legal obligations to support those they sire.

It's the implementation of these laws with which you have a problem and want to pretend that the issue is that the laws shouldn't exist at all...which makes you unfit for office and to represent anyone other than yourself. Your complete lack of understanding of the role of society in determining laws regulating behavior and single-mindedness regarding your OCD fixation on this issue makes the idea that you could hold office repugnant to thinking persons.

I actually agree that these laws are atrocious and unfair; however, it's THE IMPLEMENTATION of the laws that are needing fixing, and not an elimination of the laws altogether.

I'd consider you nothing more than a crackpot if your sole reason for running for office is, as you project, to "fix" child support.

by jstnay Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:26 pm

GPO
I actually agree that these laws are atrocious and unfair; however, it's THE IMPLEMENTATION of the laws that are needing fixing, and not an elimination of the laws altogether.

I'd consider you nothing more than a crackpot if your sole reason for running for office is, as you project, to "fix" child support.

I agree with your assessment of this. Life's not fair then you die.
He needs to try for a local office to change his States law, should he win the Senate seat he would be a Jr. Senator and would never get a federal law regarding this passed, actually even if he were a Sr. Senator it's doubtful it would get to the floor not to mention pass.

by dimsum Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:42 am

Shirina wrote:
Hi Shirina long time no "see"..

Hey there, dimsum ... glad to see you onboard! Hopefully you'll stick around for a spell.

I think I will and thanks..

by **Ivan** Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:03 am

Ah, I see that Oz still hasn’t managed to learn how to use the quote facility. Perhaps that’s something to do with right-wingers being less intelligent than those of a left persuasion:-
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/48586-intelligent-people-more-likely-to-be-left-wing-atheists

Quoting another poster really is quite simple. Copy and paste the text, then highlight it and click the twelfth button from the left (fourth in quick reply), and others can then quickly distinguish quoted material from your own comments. That’s probably too complicated for someone who no doubt considers George W. Bush to have been a better President than Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.

The member list for this forum shows nobody registered under the name of ‘Windbag’, so I must assume that Oz, who already holds our record for insulting the highest number of posters on one thread, is now resorting to rudeness towards another poster once again, which is another common right-wing trait. Hardly surprising from someone who is so pathetic that he boasts, not only about being a troll, but causing the demise of a message board. Some of us on the left prefer to create forums, not destroy them.

by jstnay Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:24 am

Quoting another poster really is quite simple. Copy and paste the text, then highlight it and click the twelfth button from the left (fourth in quick reply), and others can then quickly distinguish quoted material from your own comments. That’s probably too complicated for someone who no doubt considers George W. Bush to have been a better President than Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.
[quote]
Since I didn't know how I'll give it a try, frustrating when I quote myself. LOL

by jstnay Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:26 am

[Quoting another poster really is quite simple. Copy and paste the text, then highlight it and click the twelfth button from the left (fourth in quick reply), and others can then quickly distinguish quoted material from your own comments. That’s probably too complicated for someone who no doubt considers George W. Bush to have been a better President than Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.
]
Well maybe this will work.

by jstnay Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:28 am

Quoting another poster really is quite simple. Copy and paste the text, then highlight it and click the twelfth button from the left (fourth in quick reply), and others can then quickly distinguish quoted material from your own comments. That’s probably too complicated for someone who no doubt considers George W. Bush to have been a better President than Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.

by jstnay Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:28 am

ahhh it worked.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:41 am

lol. Ivan, you just don't know when you're being trolled.

I can and have used the quote function (earlier today, even)...I just know that you have a button for how I quote posters without using the quote box so I elect to post how I choose and not how you choose me to post.

I'm also fairly amused that you decided to go on a personal attack; see, Shirina...a person's true character will be exposed.

As for the thread originator, I'd venture to guess that it's a troll impersonating the guy...what guy running for office would think posting on a UK message board where persons who might vote for him don't even live is a good idea? I'm not buying it...and if it actually IS the candidate, then his crackpot status has been confirmed.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:45 am

Ivan wrote:Ah, I see that Oz still hasn’t managed to learn how to use the quote facility. Perhaps that’s something to do with right-wingers being less intelligent than those of a left persuasion:-
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/48586-intelligent-people-more-likely-to-be-left-wing-atheists

Quoting another poster really is quite simple. Copy and paste the text, then highlight it and click the twelfth button from the left (fourth in quick reply), and others can then quickly distinguish quoted material from your own comments. That’s probably too complicated for someone who no doubt considers George W. Bush to have been a better President than Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.

The member list for this forum shows nobody registered under the name of ‘Windbag’, so I must assume that Oz, who already holds our record for insulting the highest number of posters on one thread, is now resorting to rudeness towards another poster once again, which is another common right-wing trait. Hardly surprising from someone who is so pathetic that he boasts, not only about being a troll, but causing the demise of a message board. Some of us on the left prefer to create forums, not destroy them.

How's this...? It seems you, like most leftists, can do no wrong while committing the very same offenses for which you cry crocodile tears. Save your moral outrage...it means absolutely nothing to me. It's nice to see you finally show your true colors, though. I'd say you more than rival anything I've posted thus far in terms of personal attacks and trolling.

In addition, I'd have to challenge your assertation that leftists are all THAT intelligent if you continually confuse me, an atheist, for a right-winger.

by Shirina Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:18 am

Shirina...a person's true character will be exposed.

Not really, Oz, unless a person's "true character" only manifests from anger and annoyance. I think you're confusing "true" character with "worst" character. We all have a darker side, and that tends to come forth when someone is insulted, offended, threatened, or manipulated. Most of us are much like the hulk: "You won't like me when I'm angry." More importantly, we tend not to like ourselves when we're angry. What people like the Dana Crew do is provoke others into showing their worst sides, not their true sides of their personalities.

by oftenwrong Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:45 am

Given that all postings with the exception of Board Administrator may be anonymous, there is little to be gained by trying to attach a "personality" to a made-up pen-name, particularly where it has been intentionally chosen to mislead.

Many posters reveal themselves in what they post. Only the most skilful Walter Mitty practitioners can sustain an artificial persona in character for very long. (Members of Parliament excepted).

by GreatNPowerfulOz Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:42 am

"Not really, Oz, unless a person's "true character" only manifests from anger and annoyance. I think you're confusing "true" character with "worst" character." ~ Shirina

On the contrary...I think a person's "worst" character is their true character because such is the nature of character. I think you are confusing personality with character.

by **Ivan** Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:43 am

lol. Ivan, you just don't know when you're being trolled.

So Oz, who are you saying is trolling me – you or Mr Cusick?

My intervention came because I think you’re a bully, and I took exception to the string of insults you dished out on your ‘egg’ thread to nice people, including a member of the moderation team, who never set out to offend anyone.

If you’d been intelligent enough to know how to click on links, you’d realise that it wasn’t my thesis that left-wingers and atheists are more intelligent, but the result of research by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. It’s also a pity that you don’t know the difference between ‘liberals’ (a very dirty word in the UK these days if used with a capital ‘L’) and ‘socialists’, but never mind, keep trying. You might even find out what a ‘social democrat’ is one of these days, although the concept might be too subtle for you. Oh, and by the way, some right-wingers are atheists, there’s no contradiction there.

Mr Cusick came to this forum in response to an invitation which I sent him by e-mail. I may be based in the south-east of England, but that doesn’t mean that this is an exclusively UK forum. Somebody a shade brighter than you might have noticed that a number of Americans and Canadians have registered here, we have an affiliation with an Australian forum which has given us at least one new member so far, and I see that one poster lives in South Africa. If people from outside the UK can join this forum, plenty of others may read its contents from time to time, and I don’t doubt that Mr Cusick, like most politicians, will take any opportunity to share his views with as wide an audience as possible.

you do realize that I'm the troll that got the U.S. News boards shuttered, don't you?

What do you want, a medal? Was that your greatest achievement in life? Personally, I prefer building up forums rather than destroying them, and I guess that most Cutting Edge members probably agree with me.

I shan’t respond again, I’ll leave it to Shirina to moderate you should it become necessary. No doubt as a troll you consider you’ve been successful in provoking me; that’s okay if it’s how you get your kicks, but I haven’t the time to amuse you any longer, and this thread needs to get back on subject.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:45 am

"Given that all postings with the exception of Board Administrator may be anonymous, there is little to be gained by trying to attach a "personality" to a made-up pen-name, particularly where it has been intentionally chosen to mislead" ~ oftenwrong

Are you projecting or merely speculating?

by astra Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:31 pm

Are you projecting or merely speculating?

EEEEEEEyupyuzzzzzirrrrreeeeee!

Now er em let's see if it works

by JP Cusick Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:08 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

We, the People, have the inherent right to establish laws regulating the behavior of individuals who wish to participate and be members of our society.

I actually agree that these laws are atrocious and unfair; however, it's THE IMPLEMENTATION of the laws that are needing fixing, and not an elimination of the laws altogether.

I know that it is a popular perspective for many (if not most) people to view as being the "responsible" person / citizen / parent by those going to Courts and to the law and getting the Child Support and Custody orders as the "responsible" thing to do, but that is NOT true, because in fact that is dumping all of the personal responsibility onto the Courts and onto the laws instead of such persons actually handling their own business by their own means.

Personal problems and personal business are thereby personal responsibility and NOT the responsibility of the Courts or of the laws, and that dysfunction is what we now have going onward, and it needs to be stopped.

Here you say that you know the laws are wrong and yet you cling to them anyway, while I suggest we let go of that evil way.

The infamous "monkey trap" = linked HERE.

==================================

jstnay wrote:

He needs to try for a local office to change his States law, should he win the Senate seat he would be a Jr. Senator and would never get a federal law regarding this passed, actually even if he were a Sr. Senator it's doubtful it would get to the floor not to mention pass.

You and other people might not be able to foresee it now, but if I do win this election to the US Senate then I surely will have the ability and the power to get what I want done, so that when I am elected then the evil Child Support and Custody laws will be doomed to go to their blessed and rightful ending.

The bigger concern is in all the other things which will also collapse at the same based on some one as myself taking on that position as a Senator, as that is a scary thought even for me, but so be it.

by jstnay Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:31 pm

You and other people might not be able to foresee it now, but if I do win this election to the US Senate then I surely will have the ability and the power to get what I want done, so that when I am elected then the evil Child Support and Custody laws will be doomed to go to their blessed and rightful ending.

You don't seem to understand that it is the States right to decide these things, States rights trump the Feds unless it is unconstitutional for things like this. The Feds will back up the States when a person is 'on the run' if necessary since there are Federal Laws regarding Child Support, the last I checked which was some time ago.

Being a Senator is one thing, getting 51 votes with no filibuster, a majority in the House and the President to sign it is quite another.

The House and Senate can't agree on anything at this time. It's not to likely this would be a priority, except for the deadbeats.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:17 pm

"I know that it is a popular perspective for many (if not most) people to view as being the "responsible" person / citizen / parent by those going to Courts and to the law and getting the Child Support and Custody orders as the "responsible" thing to do, but that is NOT true, because in fact that is dumping all of the personal responsibility onto the Courts and onto the laws instead of such persons actually handling their own business by their own means.

Personal problems and personal business are thereby personal responsibility and NOT the responsibility of the Courts or of the laws, and that dysfunction is what we now have going onward, and it needs to be stopped.

Here you say that you know the laws are wrong and yet you cling to them anyway, while I suggest we let go of that evil way." ~ Windy

YOU don't seem to understand that laws are not "evil"...that if "evil" exists, then it's people who are evil, not laws. Parents are not on an autonomous island; they exist within a society...a society which has rules and codifications for what their responsibilities as parents are. You sound like the crazy religious people who claim the government has no right to tell them how to parent their child when they starve them or refuse them medical care because it's against their "beliefs." I'm going to chalk you up as a crackpot and leave it at that. You are absolutely clueless regarding the role of government and most assuredly do not deserve to be a SENATOR in the United States Senate. If you have even the most remote glimmer of an understanding of the issue, you'd know that you should be running for your STATE senate, not the federal government one. Child support and child custody laws are STATE purview, not that of the federal government, and if you were truly embarking on a quest to correct the ills of this situation then you'd pick the correct path rather than one which has absolutely no chance of you changing anything except your salaray and pension.

Considering your complete lack of grasp of the issue, I'd venture to say that you're not looking to actually accomplish anything except getting yourself a lifetime mealticket.

We, as a society, have the absolute and inherent right to set standards for behavior. You don't seem capable of grasping this. Your issue is with how it's IMPLEMENTED and you confuse whether laws should exist with how they are enforced. With this being such a simple concept, I'd say your lack of understanding more than disqualifies you as suitable for statesmanship.

by jstnay Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:52 pm

Considering your complete lack of grasp of the issue, I'd venture to say that you're not looking to actually accomplish anything except getting yourself a lifetime mealticket.

If his States Laws are like the ones I know of and still owes back support, he still owes the money and will until the day he dies, the child reaching his/her 18th birthday does not forgive this debt. His wages would be attached to pay what he owes and if he leaves an Estate it would have to pay the back support just like any other bill.

by Guest Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:25 pm

JP Cusick, regarding this,

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
… I'd say your lack of understanding more than disqualifies you as suitable for statesmanship.

JP, notice this:

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 3: “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

JP Cusick, having “attained to the Age of “thirty Years”, having “been nine Years a Citizen of the United States”, and being “an Inhabitant of that State for which [you] shall be chosen”, you are in fact “suitable” as a United States Senator, as there is nothing that “disqualifies” you for a seat in the United States Senate.

by oftenwrong Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:47 pm

QUOTE: When Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise..

by jstnay Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:38 pm

http://votejp.webs.com/biographypage.htm
Mr. Cusick's bio

He might legally be suitable but this makes me wonder why he bothers, he is not likely to be elected with this record.

In 1994 was the first time incarceration 3 months for child support and again 6 months in 1997. The incarcerations were done wrongfully by the Court with unethical pressure from the child support agency for St. Mary's County.

Mr. Cusick did try to cooperate but the child support enforcement is too severely unreasonable and excessively demanding so that compliance was not possible nor acceptable. Then because of that prosecution he was released from jail in a worse condition of homeless and destitute with the child support officials demanding more cash payments regardless of his own deteriorated condition.

Therefore Mr. Cusick proceeded to spray paint the 4 pillars on the front of the Circuit Court house in Leonardtown with green spray paint writing out the words "Child Support is Legalized Stealing", and, "Thou Shalt Not Steal", and, "Michael Harris Thief Master", and, "Inside this Court is a Den of Thieves". No other damage was done. He just wanted others to know what was going on. He was arrested, pleaded guilty, served 18 months in the County Detention Center. Link HERE.

Then directly after release in 1998 Mr. Cusick went and painted the 2 pillars in front of the child support enforcement office (the Carter Bldg) in Leonardtown with similar words of, Child Support Thieves, and, "Thou shalt Not Steal". Got arrested, pleaded guilty again, served 14 months in County Detention Center.

He figured at that time that the local Courts just enforce the unjust child support laws and do not make the laws, so after release in July 2000, Mr. Cusick traveled to Annapolis and spray painted the two pillars of the Maryland State House with red spray paint saying, "Child Support Thieves", and, "Thou Shalt Not Steal". Later he got arrested, refused to enter plea, had jury trial, sentenced to 3 years in State prison for the misdemeanor. There was no other damage done. Link HERE.

Mr. Cusick does not have any felony, these actions were all minor offenses. He considers the actions to have been political crimes and thus he was a political prisoner. He was released from the Maryland D.O.C (prison) in August 2003, and his child support case is now closed.

by Guest Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:37 pm

jstnay wrote:
He might legally be suitable…

Erroneous.

Mr. Cusick is legally suitable.

by jstnay Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:51 pm

Erroneous.

Mr. Cusick is legally suitable.

And we know this because???

by dimsum Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:54 pm

Ivan I saw that article too.. Smile

by dimsum Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:55 pm

Mr Cusick has way more issues than I care to address but might have more respect for him if he cared as much for his resp. to his kids as he spent in jail trying to avoid it. jmho

by dimsum Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:01 pm

Shirina I want address something you said in a previous post that it does not cost 500 a month to raise a child. Now I figure child support is to share the resp of putting a roof over their head, food, school, clothes, ins., fuel and other utilities that are needed. That can be easily 500. More kids the bigger the home needed. I do not see how 500 a month is bad if the wages of both are taken into consideration. The custodial parent has the resp. of housing the child along utilities and such.. Child support should be something a dad or mom would want to do.. You made the child a divorce does not change that.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:06 pm

I guess "Crackpot" is pretty much on the mark.

My apologies to whose delicate sensibilities were offended by my blunt assessment of Mr Windbag....

And, yes...ROB, this guy is absolutely disqualified from being a statesman even if he were (though some gross joke of the universe) able to attain office. At best, he'd be a caricature of one.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:12 pm

"Shirina I want address something you said in a previous post that it does not cost 500 a month to raise a child." ~ dimsum

Shirina does not have any children...I didn't see the post where she stated this (or may have but don't recollect) but the statement that it doesn't take 500/month to raise a kid couldn't be anymore erroneous. Apart from my own personal experience, a news article was recently published putting the cost of raising a child at over 225k...or more than 1000 dollars a month for 18 years. Good luck trying to buy food, clothes, provide shelter, heat, water, etc for a child for $500/month. Maybe a third world nation...but not any developed country and certainly not the U.S.

by dimsum Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:19 pm

Abortion is a private issue between a woman and her doctor. I do not know about all states but a person who by murder or accident cause a loss of pregnancy then they can charge that person only if the fetus could survive outside of the womb. Abortion is a legal medical procedure not murder. I understand not all women would opt for it but that is private matter. I would never want to go back the horror before it was legal. Never.

by JP Cusick Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:35 pm

dimsum wrote:

Mr Cusick has way more issues than I care to address but might have more respect for him if he cared as much for his resp. to his kids as he spent in jail trying to avoid it. jmho

You are jumping to negative conclusions as is done against every separated parent, and we now have those ignorant laws based on such jumping.

My own son was raised with everything he needed in abundance, and the only thing my son did not have was his father there to raise him properly.

It is true that I failed as a father, but that had nothing to do with paying or not paying the dirty evil Child Support order.

When I first went to jail because of the Child Support then my son was 17 and a half years old, because it was a noted aspect that he was just 6 months away from becoming a legal adult at 18.

What we really need are laws which help encourage the parents to stay together with their children, and we need to stop viewing parents as criminals just because of their normal human failings.

========================================

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

I guess "Crackpot" is pretty much on the mark.

My apologies to whose delicate sensibilities were offended by my blunt assessment of Mr Windbag....

And, yes...ROB, this guy is absolutely disqualified from being a statesman even if he were (though some gross joke of the universe) able to attain office. At best, he'd be a caricature of one.

I just want to say that I am NOT offended by the name-calling, and I say that some times it is hard to communicate without using some name-calling reference.

In my days I have been called far worse things, and on a few occasions then I myself have thrown out some unflattering words and such.

I actually agree that if I did obtain the office of Senator that it would be a great funny joke, and I am a funny caricature, but I would still get the job done too.

The best of leaders do have a comedy aspect to them, as like President Abe Lincoln use to tell funny stories and jokes, and the Mahatma Gandhi was that way too, and both of those still today remain as unusual caricatures.

Here below is a story told by Abe Lincoln, and it is suspected that the Man in this story is Abe telling about himself:

"A man walking down the street happens to approach a pretty young Lady who stops the man angrily and says that he is the ugliest man she has ever seen.

The man replies politely that there is nothing for which he can do about it as that is just the way he happens to look.

So the disgruntled Lady replied that he could have stayed home."

Ha ha ha ..... lol!

by JP Cusick Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:04 pm

dimsum wrote:

Shirina I want address something you said in a previous post that it does not cost 500 a month to raise a child. Now I figure child support is to share the resp of putting a roof over their head, food, school, clothes, ins., fuel and other utilities that are needed. That can be easily 500. More kids the bigger the home needed. I do not see how 500 a month is bad if the wages of both are taken into consideration. The custodial parent has the resp. of housing the child along utilities and such.. Child support should be something a dad or mom would want to do.. You made the child a divorce does not change that.

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

"Shirina I want address something you said in a previous post that it does not cost 500 a month to raise a child." ~ dimsum

Shirina does not have any children...I didn't see the post where she stated this (or may have but don't recollect) but the statement that it doesn't take 500/month to raise a kid couldn't be anymore erroneous. Apart from my own personal experience, a news article was recently published putting the cost of raising a child at over 225k...or more than 1000 dollars a month for 18 years. Good luck trying to buy food, clothes, provide shelter, heat, water, etc for a child for $500/month. Maybe a third world nation...but not any developed country and certainly not the U.S.

The claims about the cost of raising a child is extremely exaggerated and unrealistic.

As like the Custodial (or as a married couple) has got to live some where so they would be paying rent or a mortgage even if there were no child, and yet the cost of housing is calculated as the entire rent or mortgage payment when the cost of housing does NOT belong within the cost of raising a child.

And stuff like food is not much since the Custodial or both parents together are going to eat their own food so the child is a smaller portion from the same table. In example a loaf of bread cost the same whether it feeds two person or feeds three persons.

People buy a bigger home and better foods because they can afford to live larger, and it is not done to wine-n-dine the kiddies.

Then they add in 4 years of College and Health Care cost or Insurance which many if not most Americans do not have.

The Child Support payments do NOT support the child, as the c/s money is just extra cash given only to the Custodial.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:35 pm

This is not an academic debate...I have 4 children, 2 of whom are now in college full time. I'm fully aware of the costs of raising children.

Your contention that a loaf a bread costs the same whether it feeds 2 people or 3 is exemplary of your simple-minded foolishness. While the loaf of bread surely costs the same regardless of how many partake, the NUMBER of loaves of bread required to feed increasing numbers also increases. Just as two people can live in a single bedroom apt, a couple with 4 children doing so would be bordering on abusive.

Sure, you can take the position that children are "not that expensive" if you live with them in squalor....however (and this is where you need to pay attention), most people understand that we don't base our ideas of what the costs of what raising a child to be are not the absolute bare minimum so as to be living in abject poverty but to afford the child/ren the best lifestyle possible with the earning power of both parents.

Again...as this seems not be penetrating the skull (a DualCitizen reference for those transfers from the U.S./ UK news boards)...your problem is not with the existence of child support laws, it's with how they are implemented.

by jstnay Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:51 pm

It's pretty obvious he's never raised a child, he has zero knowledge of what it takes.

He's miffed because he was ordered to pay it and is one of those that think OMG she's buying new clothes for herself, after all it doesn't cost anything to raise a child.
I don't believe his BS about any of this, it's all about his wallet.

Pathetic

by JP Cusick Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:50 am

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:

This is not an academic debate...

...your problem is not with the existence of child support laws, it's with how they are implemented.

The thing is that the laws have turned parenting into a crime, and it has turned parents into criminals, based on demands for money which is not justified.

If a Custodial wants to cuss and fuss and complain about the high cost of feeding and housing and etc of their own children, but they do not want to get married to the other parents, and they only want the brute force of the law to collect the Child Support cash to pay for their expenses, then that is NOT academic either.

I find that those evil Child Support and Custody laws are simply empowering the families to break up, and empowering adulteries, and empowering the alienation of the children from their parents.

I would even say that the children have a human right to full access to their natural God given parent(s) which completely over rules any Custodial demand or desire or claim to get paid even one penny of Child Support.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:25 am

I'd say child support laws are empowering women to divorce husbands rather than be held hostage in an abusive relationship because they can't afford to leave and care for their child....

Laws have not "turned parenting into a crime"....it might be more factual to state that it has turned "lack of parenting" into a crime.

I've always thought that child support should be put into an escrow account and not sent directly to friend of the court, so that the account can be audited for expenditures relative to child care and/ or abuse. While it is insane to think that there are not women who abuse the system, we must not let that deter us from the fact that child support laws exist for a reason...a very GOOD reason.

If you don't want to worry about having to pay child support, don't be making no childrens...it's just that simple.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:52 am

Ivan wrote:
lol. Ivan, you just don't know when you're being trolled.
So Oz, who are you saying is trolling me – you or Mr Cusick?

My intervention came because I think you’re a bully, and I took exception to the string of insults you dished out on your ‘egg’ thread to nice people, including a member of the moderation team, who never set out to offend anyone.

If you’d been intelligent enough to know how to click on links, you’d realise that it wasn’t my thesis that left-wingers and atheists are more intelligent, but the result of research by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. It’s also a pity that you don’t know the difference between ‘liberals’ (a very dirty word in the UK these days if used with a capital ‘L’) and ‘socialists’, but never mind, keep trying. You might even find out what a ‘social democrat’ is one of these days, although the concept might be too subtle for you. Oh, and by the way, some right-wingers are atheists, there’s no contradiction there.

Mr Cusick came to this forum in response to an invitation which I sent him by e-mail. I may be based in the south-east of England, but that doesn’t mean that this is an exclusively UK forum. Somebody a shade brighter than you might have noticed that a number of Americans and Canadians have registered here, we have an affiliation with an Australian forum which has given us at least one new member so far, and I see that one poster lives in South Africa. If people from outside the UK can join this forum, plenty of others may read its contents from time to time, and I don’t doubt that Mr Cusick, like most politicians, will take any opportunity to share his views with as wide an audience as possible.

you do realize that I'm the troll that got the U.S. News boards shuttered, don't you?
What do you want, a medal? Was that your greatest achievement in life? Personally, I prefer building up forums rather than destroying them, and I guess that most Cutting Edge members probably agree with me.

I shan’t respond again, I’ll leave it to Shirina to moderate you should it become necessary. No doubt as a troll you consider you’ve been successful in provoking me; that’s okay if it’s how you get your kicks, but I haven’t the time to amuse you any longer, and this thread needs to get back on subject.

I'll revisit this in due time....until such time, I'd just like to point out that you seem a bit unhinged so I'll let your head clear a bit before I bite it off.

by Sponsored content