Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The News reports say that our President Obama is right now pushing new serious immigration reform, and surely we can expect the Republican representatives to fight him in it whether it is the best reform or not.Mr. Cusick
You mentioned that you would consider answering questions that were not related to your main topic of concern.
If you could, I would be interested in knowing your thoughts on the illegal immigration problem that this country is now facing (legal and illegal are different subjects) and what you would be prepared to do to stop the flow into this country.
Considering the unemployment rate, and the high cost of unemployment benefits and social services, do you think that restricting the illegal entry could open some jobs that could be taken by those currently living off of the taxpayers dollars?
In my opinion, (valued only by me I'm sure) restructuring the system could put more people back to work, generate more tax dollar and reduce the expense of social programs currently stretched to the limit.
As I told you when you did first ask - we are expected to try to respect the forum rules and try to stick with the thread topic and this one is not about immigration.I believe that I have attempted to pose this question to Mr Cusick in a respectable manner, I do not see why he would not give an answer.
It is only fair to know where he stands on various subjects that are in the news and important to the people in the specific state that he is trying to run for office in.
It is not 25% because they created an exception just for Child Support which garnishes up to 65%.What I said is absolute FACT . Throwing anyone in jail is the LAST resort since the goal is to get parents to pay, which they can't do if they are in jail.
Also, I made it VERY clear that athey WILL garnish the parent's wages, BUT they can BY LAW only garnish 25% of an earner's take home pay. THAT is also FACT.
url= U.S. Department of Labor - Page Not Found /url 3972 8174 2832 70112735 h.htm
So if a person's take home pay is low enough they may only be paying a portion of their child support but the state will NOT punish them for that. They will try other methods to collect if you have assets and such they can attach, and they will seize any tax refunds or such; but they will NOT even take your DL in such instances.
I know FAR more than you on this subject my friend. I promise
Both of you are misrepresenting the situation in that you are referencing the federal law when the feds only enter the case under specific conditions.A parent would have had to make NO payments for 24 consecutive months, and owe a TOTAL of $5000 or more to face a misdemeanor charge. A parent would have to be $10000 behind in the same time frame to face a felony charge
url= Child Exploitation and Obscenity (CEOS): Child Support Enforcement /url]
It is each State with State laws that put parents into jails nationwide just for being impoverished or dead-broke or for being under-employed and assorted other reasons.
So the feds might wait 24 months but the States are already attacking the parents within those same 24 months.
Fair enough, you just sounded like you were using my information for nefarious reasons.
I was just curious, I didn't know you could go to jail because of back child support.
Didnt mean to jump to conclusions , or imply anything. sorry about that.
There is that self-righteousness again and it is hopeless indeed.While I think dead beat dads should get punished,
I think dads get the short end in custody agreements. I mean every other weekend and a few weeks a year is what I get and I miss him terribly. He's my little man and I love him so much, but I feel that sometimes that being a single father is frowned upon and a single mother is celebrated when we are both parents.
Oh well, that's life.
They made no such exception, you are wrong. CSE can only garnish 25% of a person's paycheck per child support case.
You are also wrong about the federal government. Every state as a CSE which operates under FEDERAL guidelines. Meaning the state must follow state guidelines.
The Brain:
Actually there are more dead beat moms in this country than dads FACT. Now it is true that men owe ore money , but more moms are behind than dads.
IF that is a fact, and it seems unreasonable that it would be since a woman would have to be filmed blowing someone on Main Street with a crack pipe in one hand and a needle in the other arm, all the while collecting cash payment in order to lose custody in our family court system (which, btw, I do believe needs reform), there should be some authoritative data to back it up. Give or get out.
Why does it seem unreasonable? That is a pretty prejudiced comment if you ask me.
FOXNews.com - Moms Can Be Deadbeats Too - U.S. & World
This source is a little dated, the data is still similar but I can't find my more recent data at the moment.
There shouldn't be child support laws, period. The government has no right to interfere in family matters unless there is physical harm taking place.
Maybe they need to regulate where the child support goes, like with food stamps, alot of women just use the child support to go out all night to the club.
Maybe they need to regulate where the child support goes, like with food stamps, alot of women just use the child support to go out all night to the club.
quantify "alot." Or a lot, if you will.
And who will bear the screams against more government regulation, as well as the necessary hiring of more government employees to conduct it?
Maybe they need to regulate where the child support goes, like with food stamps, alot of women just use the child support to go out all night to the club.
quantify "alot." Or a lot, if you will.
And who will bear the screams against more government regulation, as well as the necessary hiring of more government employees to conduct it?
I can only tell you from my own life experience I have seen quite a few young ladies who use their "child support" on themselves and not the children, realistically there is no way to regulate where these funds go its just a suggestion, food stamps can only be used on food and child support should only be used on the child.
quantify "alot." Or a lot, if you will.
And who will bear the screams against more government regulation, as well as the necessary hiring of more government employees to conduct it?
I can only tell you from my own life experience I have seen quite a few young ladies who use their "child support" on themselves and not the children, realistically there is no way to regulate where these funds go its just a suggestion, food stamps can only be used on food and child support should only be used on the child.
I do understand, but where that gets tricky is in the other side of the opportunity for abuse, the cost of paperwork, and the added people to conduct the paperwork. One of the reasons that it is a popular program here in the US is that it lifts some families above the poverty threshold required for needs based welfare, reducing the # who qualify for it, and the administrative costs of regulating it. If mothers are not caring for their children, then there are laws against neglect that apply to them as well, and they can be reported.
There are laws in States but mandated by federal laws which has created a "parenting police" to enforce the oppressive and destructive Child Support system and it needs to be stopped - or at least needs some huge reforms.
As it is now it is ONLY-only poor and impoverished and dead-broke parents go to jail for the Child Support (for 6 months to 3 years then plus probation), so now we literally have hundreds of parents going in and out of jail in every American County, and thousands upon thousands of parents in and out of jail in every State, and we literally have millions upon millions of dirt poor parents going in and out of jail nationwide and it is not only an absurd process but in true effect the laws destroy the families by incarcerating the parents.
And the federal laws will put the parents into federal prison for five (5) years and if the parents had the money to pay then they would not go to jail nor to prison because only the low income and dead-broke parents get incarcerated and it needs to be stopped.
Most people fail to see that Child Support is a big political agenda and it is not a true effort to help children. There is a pretense that giving them money means helping the child(ren) but we know the children need their parents, and particularly need their fathers, but the well developed American doctrine has become that money is itself its own justification and that doctrine is not true and not real so that the laws are doing real long term damage to our society.
I can only tell you from my own life experience I have seen quite a few young ladies who use their "child support" on themselves and not the children, realistically there is no way to regulate where these funds go its just a suggestion, food stamps can only be used on food and child support should only be used on the child.
I do understand, but where that gets tricky is in the other side of the opportunity for abuse, the cost of paperwork, and the added people to conduct the paperwork. One of the reasons that it is a popular program here in the US is that it lifts some families above the poverty threshold required for needs based welfare, reducing the # who qualify for it, and the administrative costs of regulating it. If mothers are not caring for their children, then there are laws against neglect that apply to them as well, and they can be reported.
You are correct trying to regulate where these funds go would just turn into alot of red tape and paperwork, and its something thats not going to happen, just something I was thinking about.
I do understand, but where that gets tricky is in the other side of the opportunity for abuse, the cost of paperwork, and the added people to conduct the paperwork. One of the reasons that it is a popular program here in the US is that it lifts some families above the poverty threshold required for needs based welfare, reducing the # who qualify for it, and the administrative costs of regulating it. If mothers are not caring for their children, then there are laws against neglect that apply to them as well, and they can be reported.
You are correct trying to regulate where these funds go would just turn into alot of red tape and paperwork, and its something thats not going to happen, just something I was thinking about.
Well, it IS frustrating for parents who pay their support faithfully and still see their children going without things they believe (many times quite rightly) they should have. I've been on both sides of this issue, both as a mother and one who has seen some good men horribly abused by the system by the courts and predatory women. There aren't any easy answers here, only the best we can do under less than ideal and complex circumstances.
You are correct trying to regulate where these funds go would just turn into alot of red tape and paperwork, and its something thats not going to happen, just something I was thinking about.
Well, it IS frustrating for parents who pay their support faithfully and still see their children going without things they believe (many times quite rightly) they should have. I've been on both sides of this issue, both as a mother and one who has seen some good men horribly abused by the system by the courts and predatory women. There aren't any easy answers here, only the best we can do under less than ideal and complex circumstances.
This is why I will never get married again and why alot of men don't want to, in divorce and child support proceedings, women carry all the cards, the men only have an advantage if the woman is a unfit mother and you have to prove that, the system is stacked against men from the jump. In alot of divorces I seen the woman gets to keep the children, get child support, alimony (which is a huge joke in my opinion) if she can get it and half of the possessions, why should someone sign up for that?
Well, it IS frustrating for parents who pay their support faithfully and still see their children going without things they believe (many times quite rightly) they should have. I've been on both sides of this issue, both as a mother and one who has seen some good men horribly abused by the system by the courts and predatory women. There aren't any easy answers here, only the best we can do under less than ideal and complex circumstances.
This is why I will never get married again and why alot of men don't want to, in divorce and child support proceedings, women carry all the cards, the men only have an advantage if the woman is a unfit mother and you have to prove that, the system is stacked against men from the jump. In alot of divorces I seen the woman gets to keep the children, get child support, alimony (which is a huge joke in my opinion) if she can get it and half of the possessions, why should someone sign up for that?
Women have some pretty valid reasons not to enter into that suicide pact as well, but like I said, I do understand.
Me? I say that I'll never live with a man again, I'm just looking for someone who already hates me so I can FURNISH their home. Some of us are too proud to accept alimony. Some of us leave with MUCH less than we came with or furnished while we were there, and some of US have to start from scratch too.
I agree with this - and I give my compliments for having the insight to say such a thing.There shouldn't be child support laws, period. The government has no right to interfere in family matters unless there is physical harm taking place.
