on May 14th, 2006 at 12:40 pm

Look for the PORK in all anti male leglislation, who is it that actually profits.

Did the shared parenting bill in NY fail because of women, or did it fail because shared parenting would reduce formal child support (throught the child support enforcement agency) and the state of NY would lose money?
What is NYs share of the reward money given to states for collecting child support. Informal child support (when money goes directly from father to mother) does not contribute to collection rates. When the budged debate of 2005 was going on and the issue of cutting funds to the federal office of child support was being debated the Senator from Texas was extremely concerned about how much money his state would loose in incentive payments from the federal government. (Your Tax Dollars) When it is all added up, the federal government pays states to run local child support offices about 5 Billion dollars, then they give states reward money for doing a good job, then they give them grant money to find out ways to do a better job of determining paternity, establishing more support orders, and collecting more child support. Just this alone makes it obvious that the STATE benifits most from having fathers pay child support. And just how much money does your state get from the Laws governing the Domestic Violence Act? Does this money benifit the State more than women? We all know how our elected leaders pass laws to get money to their home states. Child support and domestic violence equal BIG BUCKS going back to their home state. So not only do you, the father pay child support, you pay the government money to collect the support, and you pay the government money to reward the state for collecting child support from you. And much the same can be said about the domestic violence issue.

kjm:

You are absolutely right and make an “excellent argument” as to why none of us should contribute to this extortion racket.

Keep speaking out. I think people need to hear what you have to say.

Thanks,

Kevin Merck

The Democratic/Republican coalition is a dictatorship. There may be a new face on the Dictator every 4-8 years, but laws like this exist to keep one of their factions in power, and thus keep all of them in power. Consider, that men with a desire to be free are a threat to a dictatorship, and it’s not hard to understand the need to eliminate due process, as means to control dissension.

When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”
Adolf Hitler

Did the shared parenting bill in NY fail because of women, or did it fail because shared parenting would reduce formal child support (throught the child support enforcement agency) and the state of NY would lose money?
What is NYs share of the reward money given to states for collecting child support. Informal child support (when money goes directly from father to mother) does not contribute to collection rates. When the budged debate of 2005 was going on and the issue of cutting funds to the federal office of child support was being debated the Senator from Texas was extremely concerned about how much money his state would loose in incentive payments from the federal government. (Your Tax Dollars) When it is all added up, the federal government pays states to run local child support offices about 5 Billion dollars, then they give states reward money for doing a good job, then they give them grant money to find out ways to do a better job of determining paternity, establishing more support orders, and collecting more child support. Just this alone makes it obvious that the STATE benifits most from having fathers pay child support. And just how much money does your state get from the Laws governing the Domestic Violence Act? Does this money benifit the State more than women? We all know how our elected leaders pass laws to get money to their home states. Child support and domestic violence equal BIG BUCKS going back to their home state. So not only do you, the father pay child support, you pay the government money to collect the support, and you pay the government money to reward the state for collecting child support from you. And much the same can be said about the domestic violence issue.

The answer to this question is complicated and has as many different answers as there are politicians. For example; a Republican may support VAWA to gain support from Democrats for federal funding to build a new prison in his/her district etc. It’s “almost always” about money. It may also just be a case of a Republican politician who has been brainwashed by the “leftwing feminist propaganda machine”. (This includes most of the media and regretfully even some of the people who post on this forum.)

In my opinion, the bottom line in all this is that; as long as it remains profitable to discriminate against men/fathers, the practice will continue. The only way for us to take the profit motive out of this “extortion racket” is to refuse to pay.

How can any self-respecting human being pay, or continue to pay, this extortion; especially those who have been wrongfully accused of all kinds of heinous acts against their former spouse and kidnapped children. For anyone to claim that their continued payment of this outrageous extortion is somehow the right or noble thing to do, to me, is the ultimate act of cowardice.

I pity the Mothers and Fathers and Sons and Daughters for having a Son or Father like you.

By the way, feel free to quote me on that.

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

Thomas Jefferson

Can any of you imagine the courts trying to take children from these great men? They would spit on any coward who cooperated with these tyrants and the tyrants themselves would undoubtedly pay with their lives.

Kevin Merck

It just goes to show you that some politicians will do anything to get their dick sucked.

Remember the great welfare reform of 1996? This law made changes to how child support was collected (ug) It was also designed to get people off of welfare and get them to work. People could only be on TANF for a limited amount of time. I think it was 5 years. Mothers were to go to work and help support their children. But there was the Wellstone/Murray Amendment that may have contributed to rising numbers of domestic abuse claims. IFa woman was abused at SOMETIME in her life by SOMEONE the state did not have to limit her to the 5 year rule. She did not have to comply with the child support rules, etc. Some states required proof such as police reports, others just took her word that she has been abused. I just found the Wellstone/Murry Amendment today, and believe it or not I think they may still be in Congress.