• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A fathers point of view

Bodi said:
That is why parents budget.

No it doesn't. It is added to the upcoming monthly budget. Even if you want to claim it is "paying them back" which is absurd, that would only apply to the first month. Once the second month is there the custodial parent is spending "their" money AND the Child Support... and then in the very last month the custodial parent is paid back with the last installment of Child Support.

What specifically do you have against a Card that can only be spent on kid related things?

Irrelevant - Red Herring.

That is extremely difficult to prove, not to mention the non-custodial parent would have to choose not giving the custodial parent more money to pay for things, or paying for them themselves during their time so that they could build a case against the negligent parent... consequently harming their own kids in the process.

Some do... so that the Child is Supported.

Sure should be that way... only people that are fine with Child Neglect would argue that the money should not be forced to pay for the child.

It is a type of welfare... sure.

Welfare
a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of WELFARE

the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity; aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need; an agency or program through which such aid is distributed… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com
Click to expand...

I named a bunch of stuff in post 115 that would be needed but not necessarily come across as just for the kid. Rent, gas, baby sitters (what, the custodial parent has to go somewhere?!), presents and things "from the kid" for family, friends, going to parties, etc.

And it's BS when you pretend it's not practical to check on and act on neglect or abuse. Of course it is. Esp. if you keep open communication. And as a non-custodial parent, you have that right. What do you think social services is for? There's also teachers, friends, relatives, etc that can be included. If you care more about being nickel and dimed for imagined frivolities than actual neglect or abuse...it's pretty obvious exactly what you care more about...yanking the custodial parent's chain, not the kid.
 
CLAX1911 said:
The data are what they are. You can say it's because of something else but you'll have to sit

Breaking up only happens then?

There is the data. Children are less likely to be abused or neglected in families than with a single parent. I would consider two parents caring for children nuclear family. Regardless of sex.

If you want to have an argument with the court about calling child support that go do it. I'm not going to argue with you about why we use words like this

It's punishment having to care for your child?

Walks away? That's often the woman.

Then we wouldn't be discussing this.

If the child is work that you need to get paid for you shouldn't have custody.

Yeah we not talking about a man saying how she spends the money we're taking about the law saying so. And it says so to every other parent. Single mothers aren't special.

Just like every other adult. A woman without children has to look after herself. Nobody pays her for that. Nobody should get paid for that. If you can't look after yourself without financial support you shouldn't have custody of children.

No shit it's for the court to say just like it did to everyone else.

If they spend the money on booze and dates they are. I stand by my basis for my argument I am correct.
Click to expand...
True that the data is quite clear. And it shows that it is based on how children are treated rather than on having a mixed couple raising them.
No there is no data that shows single parents are more likely to abuse children. There is data that children livinging poverty is not good because men refuse to pay their dues is harmful though.
No, i want you to admit that throwing money at children does not mean you are supporting a child. In fact it is the opposite, you are neglecting a child y doing nothing but throw money at them.
All children are work. Except to lazy men who think money alone will solve that problem. Such as paying a nanny to do your work for you.

No, you are saying hoiw women should spend there money. We already have laws that cover neglect of children. But you want to punish womwn for taking the time off to have a cup of coffee. That is not the law that is a inadequate man trying to pretend he has control.

Another argument for eugenics by you. Only those who can afford a child should have children.

And of course you end with demonising women. You have noit got an argument. All you have is the ability to demean women.
 
Bodi said:
That is such a stupid comparison ... 🤭

I said that you are trying to insult... what you are doing, in reality, is making clownish statements. 🤗

See? More garbage. We are talking about supporting children and you want to try and insult for some reason.

I guess it is just old fashioned Man-Hating Misandry because there seems to be no other logical explanation.
Click to expand...
If you cannot argue with politeness then do not bother me again.
 
Bodi said:
What specifically do you have against a Card that can only be spent on kid related things?
Click to expand...
It is an unnecessary cost to taxpayers because adults who made a child together can't play nice with each other. We don't need to hire entire divisions to babysit what child support recipients spend money on because ex's can't get along and don't trust each other. If they're going through state child support enforcement - that much is a foregone conclusion.
Bodi said:
It is a type of welfare... sure.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't.
Bodi said:
Welfare
a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need
Click to expand...
 
Bodi said:
Why are you against a card mandating that the funds be spent on the child?
Click to expand...
Because I'm not paying for the fact that two people can't get along by funding another administrative role in government to babysit them.

It is a stupid idea and bourne out of animosity between ex-lovers. No more, no less.

If former lovers are having the state babysit whether or not they can exchange money - they can't get along. Billions are made by divorce lawyers on the animosity. Tax payers don't need to spend MORE money because Dead Beat Daddy thinks Custodial Mommy spent child support on a new pair of shoes or some bullshit complaint.
 
Bodi said:
would think that only those not concerned about Child Neglect would make an argument that the funds should not be spent solely on the Child
Click to expand...
If TRUE child neglect is suspected - every state has an agency to deal with it. Call them. That’s their job.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I'm not sure the objection here.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why @Bodi wants more administrative government costs to babysit what child support is/isn’t spent on.

Our existing social workers are already overworked dealing with REAL neglect and abuse.

Whether or not Jane Doe is buying a coffee with child support level minutia isn’t neglect or abuse. And doesn’t require inventing/funding an entire government agency to administer and manage.

Our current child support enforcement agents are trying to track down over $110B in unpaid child support - so they have better things to do.
 
BirdinHand said:
Tax payers don't need to spend MORE money because Dead Beat Daddy thinks Custodial Mommy spent child support on a new pair of shoes or some bullshit complaint.
Click to expand...
There we go. I knew it would eventually come out. Dead beat Dad and Victim Mommy. LOL
 
BirdinHand said:
FYI - the entire post is based on a lie/misinformation. As is the video.

Quick google search shows that there is no restrictions on what the card in DE can be used for.

And the card is an OPTION for people that don’t have a bank account.

No more, no less.


STORED VALUE CARD - Delaware Health and Social Services - State of Delaware

Stored Value Card (First State Family Card)
dhss.delaware.gov dhss.delaware.gov

You may want to find more reliable sources @Bodi because there are no strings attached to this card as to what it can be used for. It’s simply a way for DE to get child support payment more quickly to child support recipients - instead of cutting and mailing physical checks.

Countless employers use prepaid debit cards that can be reloaded instantly much like direct deposits. The entire thought process that the card would exist to prevent child support from going towards rent (or anything else) is a lie. That isn’t the purpose and there is no capability for purchases to be restricted.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this post. I'm late to the party (this thread) but support any effort to eliminate excuses by deadbeat dads to not pay child support payments. This unrestricted DE card seems like a good option.
 
Bodi said:
There we go. I knew it would eventually come out. Dead beat Dad and Victim Mommy. LOL
Click to expand...
$6.1B a year in taxpayer money spent enforcing child support orders in the US - not to mention countless hours in the private sector spent in HR depts dealing with them.

The people who make taxpayers foot the bill for their animosity towards their former lovers deserve to be mocked when they’re costing us ALL money because they can’t get along and do what is right by their kids.
 
BirdinHand said:
Because I'm not paying for the fact that two people can't get along by funding another administrative role in government to babysit them.

It is a stupid idea and bourne out of animosity between ex-lovers. No more, no less.

If former lovers are having the state babysit whether or not they can exchange money - they can't get along. Billions are made by divorce lawyers on the animosity. Tax payers don't need to spend MORE money because Dead Beat Daddy thinks Custodial Mommy spent child support on a new pair of shoes or some bullshit complaint.
Click to expand...

He wants it because he wants custodial mothers to be disrespected and have to jump thru more hoops because his real desire is for men to be able to just walk away if they want to. So he's throwing up roadblocks where ever he can. He's even tried a eugenics angle suggesting the govt should find a way to incentivize poor women to choose abortions. Do you remember it?

His own experiences, previously posted, still continue to rule his perspective here.

I also support less bureaucracy, by far. The govt isnt in the business of making relationships "work somehow" and family courts get stuck with enough of that as it is. But accusations of "you dont want the $$ to go to the child" are cheap shots...have you seen anyone post implying that? Have I?
 
BirdinHand said:
$6.1B a year in taxpayer money spent enforcing child support orders in the US - not to mention countless hours in the private sector spent in HR depts dealing with them.

The people who make taxpayers foot the bill for their animosity towards their former lovers deserve to be mocked when they’re costing us ALL money because they can’t get along and do what is right by their kids.
Click to expand...
You have your double standards... and that is fine. Just don't expect us to accept them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom