[AgentR11]

We ARE already a banana republic: we send dads to jail for nonpayment of child support when they can't find employment through no fault of their own.

While I'm not sure I'd deny your hypothesis, your suggested proof doesn't seem to demonstrate it one way or the other.

We have weird contempt of court rules.
We have a lot of "dads" with cash money, who would like nothing better than to not provide it to the custodial parent.
The system is horrible, because the problem is horrible. No way to make it not horrible, it just is what it is.
If the "dad" can't make child support payments, then jail isn't likely that much worse anyway.
If the "dad" can make child support payments, and won't, then jail will be worse, and he will likely change his mind about paying.

Any suggestions on how to get the "dads" that won't pay, to pay, without threatening to put them in jail?

This problem does not make us a "banana republic"; even if we do happen to be one.

[steam_cannon]

[quote="AgentR11"]The system is horrible, because the problem is horrible. No way to make it not horrible, it just is what it is. Of course there are ways to make it less horrible. But first it's important to define what the problem is. The main problem is the system has become lopsided. Men are assigned payments independent from their ability to pay. Women are assigned custody independent of their ability to provide for children.

In the US women get custody under all but the most extreme circumstances. Women on drugs get custody, women prostitutes get custody, women proven to have lied to judges faces in court get custody and women rarely go to jail for lying to judges. The few women who don't get custody and don't pay their child support also rarely go to jail. Women who do "share" custody rarely do so for more then five years. And women who ignore custody sharing orders also do not go to jail.

The distribution of domestic violence is almost equal among the sexes yet physical abuse of men, breaking bones slashing faces, rarely result in jail for women in the US. A woman slapping around her boyfriend makes people laugh. A women can walk up slash you in the face and she will probably get probation and have to pay limited compensation if you have witnesses and if you have a good lawyer.

But what about people who don't have twenty witnesses? With "primary aggressor laws" designed to cut down on dual arrests, they generally arrest men in an altercation. Which for many men has meant, if a man is hurt and calls the police in a domestic dispute he will be likely be arrested. No offense to anyone, but I've seen enough friends taken down by this system. To see it yourself, all you have to do is take some time and sit in on a family court or two or talk to a lawyer. It is what it is.

The United States has one of the most lopsided family court systems in the world. Do women deserve total protection from jail and 1950's style hand holding with the courts? I don't know, but personally I don't think they need any more hand holding then a man.

[Pretorian]

We ARE already a banana republic: we send dads to jail for nonpayment of child support when they can't find employment through no fault of their own.

Agent is 100% right on this; anyway if that's a problem consider emigration, many if not most banana republic do not have anything like that

[AgentR11]

To all you whiny guys that can't stand to pay money to your ex's because you think the world is unfair.

Tough Tacos.
You knew the score before you laid down with the hottie.
If you didn't know the score, you were a moron fit to be removed from the reproductive population.

And despite the whining, you still don't address how to get money from the payor parent to the custodial parent, when the payor refuses to write the check, and systemic means such as garnishment aren't effective.

Unless you are into chopping kids in two; one parent in a divorce ends up with custody, and the other needs to be paying for their support.

That was the deal before anyone reading this message was born, and if you didn't understand it, you should have gotten neutered and saved us all the trouble of listening to your lamenting about the unfairness of the world.

[rangerone314]

To all you whiny guys that can't stand to pay money to your ex's because you think the world is unfair.

Tough Tacos.
You knew the score before you laid down with the hottie.
If you didn't know the score, you were a moron fit to be removed from the reproductive population.

And despite the whining, you still don't address how to get money from the payor parent to the custodial parent, when the payor refuses to write the check, and systemic means such as garnishment aren't effective.

Unless you are into chopping kids in two; one parent in a divorce ends up with custody, and the other needs to be paying for their support.

That was the deal before anyone reading this message was born, and if you didn't understand it, you should have gotten neutered and saved us all the trouble of listening to your lamenting about the unfairness of the world.

That logic could apply to a lot of situations. When people rise up against the rich in this country some day and do heinous acts against them like the blacks do now in South Africa against whites (such as kidnap and kill babies so there "won't be future white oppressors"), you could say that the rich people knew the score before screwing the rest of society.

If a woman walks down the wrong street wearing the wrong clothes and gets raped, you could say she knew the score.

I'm fortunately not in that boat, because I've always paid on time, even when unemployed, because I always had deep savings I could dip into, and I only have 4 more years to go. I wish I could say the same for my wife's ex, so I've seen both sides of the issue.

The truth of the matter, I was addressing injustice, of people who are trying to comply and can't and get treated the same as those who flout the system.

If the argument that "life is unfair" thus we should allow injustice, we could apply that logic to all the people the died in 9/11 and say "oops terrorists blew up 3,000 people, life is unfair" and just ignore it. Maybe when someone gets hit by a drunk driver we should let them bleed to death in their car "because life is unfair" and they "knew the score" before getting hit by the drunk driver.

Are you going to tell the mother of the children killed by their father that "life is unfair" and that she should have not married him?

I can always tell dyed-in-the-wool liberals because they are usually limp biscuits and think everything can be handled by a candle lit vigil. I can always tell a dyed-in-the-wool conservative because they are usually callous, narcissic sociopaths who feel schadenfreude when people less fortunate than them get impaled on a wooden stake and then cry like stuck pigs when they get a splinter.

[AgentR11]

Offering criminal or violent counter examples to why someone should be given a pass on child support is hardly what I would call convincing

Repulsive... probably.

[rangerone314]

Offering criminal or violent counter examples to why someone should be given a pass on child support is hardly what I would call convincing

Repulsive... probably.

Sociopathy is repulsive. I was merely extending the sociopathic logic into other areas.

Law enforcement and the prison system by definition ARE violent.

People inevitably use what they are taught. If they are taught violence and sociopathy and injustice, they respond with what they are taught. I think Timothy McVeigh is a classic example... someone who hated gun-confiscating government liberals.

What is criminal is defined by those who have power, and those who have power are corrupt.

Apple) I don't think they should be jailed if they truly can't pay.

Orange) If they can pay, then they should be jailed.

Seems simple enough. (too me at least) Apparently not simple enough to understand for some (including judges) Kind of makes you wonder about our legal system with simpleton judges who can't understand the difference between an apple and an orange.

But then again, the Executive Branch is run by idiots, the Legislative Branch is run by idiots, why not the Judicial Branch, too?

Then again, treating unemployed people in a dismal economy like criminals is just the sort of fascist streak reflected in other examples from history, such as the detention of the Japanese-Americans during WWII. (Curiously the 442nd Nissei was the highest decorated unit of its size, with 21 Medals of Honor)

Ultimately liberals and conservatives are both the same: defenders of the wealthy and trying to make sure they stay that way with cheap labor (be it black slaves, China or Jose from Mexico) so the wealthy can continue fleecing Joe.

The main difference is that liberals keep the system stable with bread and circuses and the conservatives do it through billyclubs and teargas.

[AgentR11]

Its not simple at all since, all the ones that can pay and don't want to, but also have the means to hide money, find a way to say they can't, even when they most certainly can. Its amazing how quickly they can remember where they hid their money when it turns into their ticket out of jail.

[rangerone314]

Its not simple at all since, all the ones that can pay and don't want to, but also have the means to hide money, find a way to say they can't, even when they most certainly can. Its amazing how quickly they can remember where they hid their money when it turns into their ticket out of jail.

Kinda like that Iraqi veteran who came homegot arrested. NOT.

Or some of these other cases involving other veterans: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56382

So your solution is to assume everyone is presumed guilty and punish them. Efficient system!

Kudos for your original thought! Lets have more drumhead justice!

[Alan Cain]

I got to here:

Jose Illegal pays no taxes.

Why doesn't Jose pay taxes?

Because the story (I emphasize "story") means nothing unless we pretend that Jose pays no taxes. This is called the willing suspension of disbelief, and is usually associated with some sort of "liberal" that looks much like a unicorn - many sightings, none verified.

This is typical teabagger nonsense.

But you knew that.

[evilgenius]

The story is ridiculous on its face. After, what is it $500, you can't get away with not declaring payments. You totally miss the fact that most Jose's in the US do pay taxes, to somebody else's Social Security account.They also largely overpay withholding and can't get tax refunds. Beyond that, why aren't we seeing that the central argument in this piece has nothing to do with Jose at all. Take him out of the picture and what do you see? That's right, your average American is underpaid! The 400 richest people in this country are worth more than the bottom half of all Americans combined.

[Pretorian]

The story is ridiculous on its face. After, what is it $500, you can't get away with not declaring payments. You totally miss the fact that most Jose's in the US do pay taxes, to somebody else's Social Security account.They also largely overpay withholding and can't get tax refunds. Beyond that, why aren't we seeing that the central argument in this piece has nothing to do with Jose at all. Take him out of the picture and what do you see? That's right, your average American is underpaid! The 400 richest people in this country are worth more than the bottom half of all Americans combined.

That's probably because bottom half of all Americans have more debts than equity, as they think so highly of themselves that they cannot be bothered with things like " saving money" or " cooking" or " be reasonable with the size of their house". Hell, a homeless dude in India with 40 rupees in his pocket is richer than all bottom half of Americans combined. No need to invoke billionaires.

[AgentR11]

That's probably because bottom half of all Americans have more debts than equity, as they think so highly of themselves that they cannot be bothered with things like " saving money" or " cooking" or " be reasonable with the size of their house". Hell, a homeless dude in India with 40 rupees in his pocket is richer than all bottom half of Americans combined. No need to invoke billionaires.

Ouch.
Probably true.
But ouch.

[evilgenius]

The story is ridiculous on its face. After, what is it $500, you can't get away with not declaring payments. You totally miss the fact that most Jose's in the US do pay taxes, to somebody else's Social Security account.They also largely overpay withholding and can't get tax refunds. Beyond that, why aren't we seeing that the central argument in this piece has nothing to do with Jose at all. Take him out of the picture and what do you see? That's right, your average American is underpaid! The 400 richest people in this country are worth more than the bottom half of all Americans combined.

That's probably because bottom half of all Americans have more debts than equity, as they think so highly of themselves that they cannot be bothered with things like " saving money" or " cooking" or " be reasonable with the size of their house". Hell, a homeless dude in India with 40 rupees in his pocket is richer than all bottom half of Americans combined. No need to invoke billionaires.

You are probably just making a sarcastic joke, but last time I looked 150 million people weren't standing on street corners yet. Sure they borrow - as I'm sure those 400 do, but that's kind of the point, having to borrow to make up for wages you aren't making. Since when don't you count the things that people buy and own, but still owe on? Those are assets, even if they go down in price. Why slam people whose group, pretty much your average person, anybody could so easily join?

[nobodypanic]

The story is ridiculous on its face. After, what is it $500, you can't get away with not declaring payments. You totally miss the fact that most Jose's in the US do pay taxes, to somebody else's Social Security account.They also largely overpay withholding and can't get tax refunds. Beyond that, why aren't we seeing that the central argument in this piece has nothing to do with Jose at all. Take him out of the picture and what do you see? That's right, your average American is underpaid! The 400 richest people in this country are worth more than the bottom half of all Americans combined.

That's probably because bottom half of all Americans have more debts than equity, as they think so highly of themselves that they cannot be bothered with things like " saving money" or " cooking" or " be reasonable with the size of their house". Hell, a homeless dude in India with 40 rupees in his pocket is richer than all bottom half of Americans combined. No need to invoke billionaires.

if that bottom half behaved like you suggest they should, then national economic demand would dry up and you'd be unemployed sooner rather than later.

the contradictions of the present economic system are insurmountable in the long run.

[prajeshbhat]

That's probably because bottom half of all Americans have more debts than equity, as they think so highly of themselves that they cannot be bothered with things like " saving money" or " cooking" or " be reasonable with the size of their house". Hell, a homeless dude in India with 40 rupees in his pocket is richer than all bottom half of Americans combined. No need to invoke billionaires.

Clearly you have no idea what poverty is. Poverty is the lack of opportunity. They dude in India with 40 rupees could easily be starving the next week.
The debts could be wiped out the same way they were created. By the stroke of a few computer keys. But opportunities require trust and social cohesion.

[Pretorian]

The story is ridiculous on its face. After, what is it $500, you can't get away with not declaring payments. You totally miss the fact that most Jose's in the US do pay taxes, to somebody else's Social Security account.They also largely overpay withholding and can't get tax refunds. Beyond that, why aren't we seeing that the central argument in this piece has nothing to do with Jose at all. Take him out of the picture and what do you see? That's right, your average American is underpaid! The 400 richest people in this country are worth more than the bottom half of all Americans combined.

That's probably because bottom half of all Americans have more debts than equity, as they think so highly of themselves that they cannot be bothered with things like " saving money" or " cooking" or " be reasonable with the size of their house". Hell, a homeless dude in India with 40 rupees in his pocket is richer than all bottom half of Americans combined. No need to invoke billionaires.

You are probably just making a sarcastic joke, but last time I looked 150 million people weren't standing on street corners yet.

I was talking about riches, not quality of life. Sarcastic joke? More like a mathematical fact I think.

Since when don't you count the things that people buy and own, but still owe on?

A family with a $100K income, that lives in a 250K house and has 2 cars worth $50K , fully furnished with a garage full of useless junk that they owe 400K for has $0 as their wealth indicator. Actually it's a way less than $0. The homeless Indian guy makes less money, but he is richer than them.

Those are assets, even if they go down in price.

no, they are not.

Why slam people whose group, pretty much your average person, anybody could so easily join?

i do not slam anybody, just having fun looking at the FACTS.

[Pretorian]

The story is ridiculous on its face. After, what is it $500, you can't get away with not declaring payments. You totally miss the fact that most Jose's in the US do pay taxes, to somebody else's Social Security account.They also largely overpay withholding and can't get tax refunds. Beyond that, why aren't we seeing that the central argument in this piece has nothing to do with Jose at all. Take him out of the picture and what do you see? That's right, your average American is underpaid! The 400 richest people in this country are worth more than the bottom half of all Americans combined.

That's probably because bottom half of all Americans have more debts than equity, as they think so highly of themselves that they cannot be bothered with things like " saving money" or " cooking" or " be reasonable with the size of their house". Hell, a homeless dude in India with 40 rupees in his pocket is richer than all bottom half of Americans combined. No need to invoke billionaires.

if that bottom half behaved like you suggest they should, then national economic demand would dry up and you'd be unemployed sooner rather than later.

the contradictions of the present economic system are insurmountable in the long run.

I did not suggest anything at all. If someone is keeping economy straight by committing his family to debts and poverty ( meaning behaving like a stupid ass) , hell, I have no objections whatsoever. In fact I encourage this behavior.Just don't ask me for bail-outs, unless you plan on paying them off ( internal organ donations, sexual services and hard labor are NOT off the table).

[PrestonSturges]

It's true the average debt ridden family has done their "patriotic duty" to pump up the economy much more effectively than a tax cut to the rich.

[evilgenius]

I like to make fun of the potato chip eating crowd as much as anybody, but I hope people understand much of that is tongue in cheek. I do blame those people who went out and got into debts that they couldn't pay off for this mess. I also blame those that lent them the money. I also blame the regulators who failed to rein in the excess. Beyond that there is a mass of psychological drama that supports one religion; capitalism, socialism, communism over another. The bottom line, however, is that economies don't actually struggle to reach equilibrium at any one point in time. They struggle to reach equilibrium over several points wildly meshed together and averaging to a point we would like to understand. Even that point can't really be said to be all that capable of being nailed down to a particular place in space and time. People react in the way they see fit within their own set of constraints, peculiar to them and maybe not so much to every other aspect of the economy as a whole. Within that context some people cheat, others struggle to get to a wider context, but most cooperate to survive. This whole Joe vs Jose thing is really the cheaters trying to discredit those that seek a wider context. If they fail there, then the next target is the school of fish that use cooperation to survive. A lot of what Pretorian says is probably true, insofar as the food supply for the school is now shrinking rather than growing like it once did. Perhaps I take umbrage at the suggestion that the intent behind the survival response of the school is suspect. That's my own particular visceral reaction. I will defend that intent, but I'm not going to say that Pretorian isn't right about some of this, given the sea change that has taken place economically. The climate has changed and the school has to learn to change with it. They don't have to start eating each other, though. Neither is it imperative that they listen to the cheaters, who would separate them from the school in order to feed on them.