Child support and jail

Having been the custodial parent - you ask and then let it go and Do. Any one who sends any one else to jail - well maybe they should have to walk in them there shoes for a bit. A parent does not rely on anyone else to make do for their kids. Seems like that's just an easy way to make your own self not "responsible".

Looking for someone else to Do what is in front of you - no matter how "responsible" they may be for the mess - don't get it done ..... but then we live blame, excuses culture and would rather be co-dependent than Be all that we can Be.

Depend on yourself and work with what is there - if any 1 person or ingredient is not there - you do what you need to to make it better. But instead we have the bloody gov. backed by them doctors and lawyers telling us what is right and goddamn us for believing them

 

Evacuate jail!

 

You know this personally? YES some people abuse the system but many people really do need it. You are using the scummy examples and acting like it is standard practice. I believe the system abusers should have their assistance pulled. I support mandatory (and freely provided) birth control once someone is on a government assist program also. (This is not to say that I believe that they, if pregnant, should abort their fetuses. I am saying we should provide birth control as to not keep a cycle going)

But DON'T pretend like welfare or child support is some glamorous shopping spree for some woman to go get her nails done while her kid hs no diapers. Most of the time, it is the single mother who gets the shit end of the deal, having to raise the child by herself when many times, the child support doesn't come in for weeks/months/years.
Some people abuse the system, but most people don't want to be on welfare. Once you are down, you stay down. You get a raise, you don't get as much support, therefore it is harder to pull yourself out of your situation.
And God FORBID we help feed the hungry or house the homeless. I don't expect anyone who says democrats are "hard on fetuses, soft on terrorists" to understand compassion to the needy, but oh well.
Not everyone has the privelege to be "conservative".

 

You know, I do think you should be helped if you are in trouble, but I don't see why I have to help. I earned my money. If you can't support your kid, I'm sorry, but I worked for this money. I personally believe that if you go homeless, or hungry, that was your own damn fault, it isn't mine, so why should I pay for it.

 

Like I said. I don't expect compassion from people like you. Your statments make you look worse than anything I could say to you, so thanks

 

What you are advocating is communism, it has been proven not to work. so how am I the stupid one?

 

The solution may be libertarianism.

 

Are you literate? I didn't say anything about you being stupid. You said it, not me. Thanks again!
XOXO

 

You insinuated that, don't deny the fact that you think conservatives are stupid.

 

stop doing this here, both liberals and conservatives have both right opinions and wrong opinions. chill out, ok?

 

Would you rather pay for her kid's food or step over its dead body in the street or have eight year olds with begging bowls in every parking lot or....

ITS NOT ABOUT THE MOM! ITS ABOUT THE KID!

What do you suggest be done about the kid? What should be done about kids whose parents ignore the good advice, "Don't have kids if you can't afford them."

 

Give the kid to a foster family. I'd be willing to help pay for a foster family if the parents can't take it.

 

Because of Social Services, every single single-parent can afford a child.

 

good show... i agree

 

Interesting post.

The situation assumed that money is the only reason to remove the kid from its parents. A taxpayer's share of the cost of the kid would be the same regardless of whether he/she is raised by natural or forster parents. (One citizen's share of the administrative costs is aprox. 0.) Yet you prefer the foster parent option.

I am not baiting you, but I am curious why that preferance.

(I would be baiting you if I wondered why a libertarian would want the government to have the power to take a child from its natural parents. Or perhaps my memory is faulty and someone else claimed libertarianism.)

Seriously, why would you prefer your money go to the kid via a foster parent rather than the natural parent?

 

I'm a libertarian conservative, but it is my belief that a foster family would be more trustworthy with the money. I would rather, instead of the natural family getting a check, for them to get clothing and food. It just seems to me that if you can't afford the child in the first place, that money would just be to tempting for the parent.

 

Thanks, I thought that the reason was similar to that.

On the original topic of child support, I presume that you would want the child raised by the father's money rather than the taxpayer's.

The trick is to keep mom from mis-spending the dough.
Historicaly, the harder trick is to keep dad paying after he has stopped sleeping with mom.

 

"and the trees were all kept equal, by hatchet, axe, and saw"