Obama's straight talk on fatherhood

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

What about men who never wanted to be fathers and who offered to pay for an abortion?

If you nail a chick, and she gets pregnant, it's your responsibility. If you don't want that, don't have sex. Not too complicated.

You can still have 'sex' without risking pregnancy. Ya just gotta avoid... Well, you know. 😉 😛

Well yea, but you know what kind of sex I'm talking about 😛

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

Because they are frequently "punished" right now. Paternal rights are practically non-existent. I know of men who pay their child support every single month and yet have NEVER been allowed to see their child. In some cases, the children are teenagers now.

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
What about men who never wanted to be fathers and who offered to pay for an abortion?

Be careful who you fuck. Think of it as a motto for almost everything in life.


edit: :thumbsup: for Obama.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I wish I could vote for Obama. I thought Chris Rock and Bill Cosby were the only black men who were being candid about the problems facing blacks.

Why can't you? 😕

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

Your logic is bizarrely convoluted. I'm curious, do you believe that enforcement of the law costs nothing? Both in dollars and in govt involvement in people's lives?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

Because they are frequently "punished" right now. Paternal rights are practically non-existent. I know of men who pay their child support every single month and yet have NEVER been allowed to see their child. In some cases, the children are teenagers now.

That sucks but it's not the Fed's responsibility to "pay" them just because the system may not be "fair".

The answer to those problems aren't to pay men, they are to fix the problem.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

Your logic is bizarrely convoluted. I'm curious, do you believe that enforcement of the law costs nothing? Both in dollars and in govt involvement in people's lives?

Exactly, enforcement is what we lack right now. Ignoring court orders for child support without consequence is easier than ignoring parking tickets. You lose your license exponentially faster for not paying a ticket than you do for not paying child support. How screwed up is that?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

Your logic is bizarrely convoluted. I'm curious, do you believe that enforcement of the law costs nothing? Both in dollars and in govt involvement in people's lives?

WTF is with you? YOU of all people should be agreeing that this isn't an area the Feds should be sticking their nose into. Sheesh.

BTW, your question makes no sense regarding what I posted. But sense you seem to want to bring law enforcement into this - do we pay people to not speed? Not run stop signs? Not drink and drive? Do we reward people for paying their bills or judgements(which is what child support can basically be)? Hells no. The idea of paying people to do what they are supposed to do anyway is absurd. It's absurd that schools are doing it too. It's just F'n ridiculous.

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

I don't see this as a 'reward', more like prevention and less cost. There are some fathers that would like to pay child support, but find it difficult to do so, because they barely make enough on their current job, doubly so if they have a new family to support also. (I also know there are deadbeats, but that's another story).

So, if they received job training and EIC, then that might be an incentive for them to pay it. Because if they don't, then usually these mothers end up on welfare, which means you end up paying anyway.

Secondly, these should not really be considered additional 'rewards', more like incentives. Job Training and EIC are already extended to other citizens (depending on need). What this is doing is to allow the man to increase his job skills so that they can get a better job so they can pay the child support (this is usually done for the mother automatically, and is often a condition of accepting welfare), and the increased EIC credit would help offset the tax deduction he may have lost because he's not the primary person for support. In this case, the feds are no more involved than they were before, and this has the result of the feds actually having a chance to be out of families lives eventually, where if there's no child support, the feds are more likely to be involved.

Child support may be a state thing, but when it's not paid, it has effects at the local, state, and federal level.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

Your logic is bizarrely convoluted. I'm curious, do you believe that enforcement of the law costs nothing? Both in dollars and in govt involvement in people's lives?

Exactly, enforcement is what we lack right now. Ignoring court orders for child support without consequence is easier than ignoring parking tickets. You lose your license exponentially faster for not paying a ticket than you do for not paying child support. How screwed up is that?

THEN ENFORCE THE LAW!!! Why is that so hard for you people to understand? The law IS enforcable - DO IT. Don't just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work and then say we have to pay people to do it.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I wish I could vote for Obama. I thought Chris Rock and Bill Cosby were the only black men who were being candid about the problems facing blacks.

Why can't you? 😕

I can't vote pro-choice in good conscience.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

Because they are frequently "punished" right now. Paternal rights are practically non-existent. I know of men who pay their child support every single month and yet have NEVER been allowed to see their child. In some cases, the children are teenagers now.

That sucks but it's not the Fed's responsibility to "pay" them just because the system may not be "fair".

The answer to those problems aren't to pay men, they are to fix the problem.

If it results in child support being paid properly and allows those good fathers who do pay to see their kids then it's worth it. Think about the impact these kids who grow up without fathers and/or very little money to support them have on this country in the long run? It's not pretty. Preserving that is one of the best things this country can spend its money on.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

I don't see this as a 'reward', more like prevention and less cost. There are some fathers that would like to pay child support, but find it difficult to do so, because they barely make enough on their current job, doubly so if they have a new family to support also. (I also know there are deadbeats, but that's another story).

So, if they received job training and EIC, then that might be an incentive for them to pay it. Because if they don't, then usually these mothers end up on welfare, which means you end up paying anyway.

Secondly, these should not really be considered additional 'rewards', more like incentives. Job Training and EIC are already extended to other citizens (depending on need). What this is doing is to allow the man to increase his job skills so that they can get a better job so they can pay the child support (this is usually done for the mother automatically, and is often a condition of accepting welfare), and the increased EIC credit would help offset the tax deduction he may have lost because he's not the primary person for support. In this case, the feds are no more involved than they were before, and this has the result of the feds actually having a chance to be out of families lives eventually, where if there's no child support, the feds are more likely to be involved.

Child support may be a state thing, but when it's not paid, it has effects at the local, state, and federal level.

:thumbsup:

Allow me to also toss in that even though a father may have difficulty affording to pay child support, that doesn't relieve him of the responsibility even if he has a new family to look out for. In the end, that child still needs to eat and have a roof over its head whether the dad can afford to pay for it or not.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
THEN ENFORCE THE LAW!!! Why is that so hard for you people to understand? The law IS enforcable - DO IT. Don't just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work and then say we have to pay people to do it.

You're right, but who is going to enforce this law and who is going to pay for it to be enforced to the point where these payments are made to the mothers when they are supposed to be paid? Checks and balances to make sure that such things get enforced properly are not cheap. Someone needs to pay for it and someone needs to make sure that the enforcement actually happens even after it is paid for.

In the end, providing incentives to the fathers to take responsibility on their own could be cheaper than strictly boosting the enforcement. Both need to happen, but the amount that both need to happen and the total cost is what really counts.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

THEN ENFORCE THE LAW!!! Why is that so hard for you people to understand? The law IS enforcable - DO IT. Don't just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work and then say we have to pay people to do it.

The law is intermittently enforceable and is incredibly manpower intensive to do so. There's a reason why the law isn't enforced that heavily, it's because it's so damn expensive to do so. First you have to find the dad, then you have to make him pay... but you can't have him pay so much that he becomes destitute because then he loses his ability to work and give future child support payments. Then after you set that up you have to make sure he keeps paying. Have you really thought this through as to why things are the way they are?

So we can accomplish our goal either through heavy handed authoritarian ways at incredible expense, or we can use that same money to provide incentives to have the problem take care of itself. Which do YOU think is the better solution?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

THEN ENFORCE THE LAW!!! Why is that so hard for you people to understand? The law IS enforcable - DO IT. Don't just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work and then say we have to pay people to do it.

The law is intermittently enforceable and is incredibly manpower intensive to do so. There's a reason why the law isn't enforced that heavily, it's because it's so damn expensive to do so. First you have to find the dad, then you have to make him pay... but you can't have him pay so much that he becomes destitute because then he loses his ability to work and give future child support payments. Then after you set that up you have to make sure he keeps paying. Have you really thought this through as to why things are the way they are?

So we can accomplish our goal either through heavy handed authoritarian ways at incredible expense, or we can use that same money to provide incentives to have the problem take care of itself. Which do YOU think is the better and cheaper solution?

Allow me to add just a little more spice to this fine post. 🙂

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

Your logic is bizarrely convoluted. I'm curious, do you believe that enforcement of the law costs nothing? Both in dollars and in govt involvement in people's lives?

WTF is with you? YOU of all people should be agreeing that this isn't an area the Feds should be sticking their nose into. Sheesh.

BTW, your question makes no sense regarding what I posted. But sense you seem to want to bring law enforcement into this - do we pay people to not speed? Not run stop signs? Not drink and drive? Do we reward people for paying their bills or judgements(which is what child support can basically be)? Hells no. The idea of paying people to do what they are supposed to do anyway is absurd. It's absurd that schools are doing it too. It's just F'n ridiculous.

I of all people understand that the Fed ALREADY has its nose stuck into our lives. Didn't you read what I just posted? You seem to think that enforcement of existing law is somehow non-invasive or cost-free. Sorry, that ain't so.
The idea is to find a better way (i.e. the definition of a solution to a problem). I'm not in favor of rewarding people monetarily for doing the right thing (I can agree with you there), but I do think that fathers who pay their child support (and otherwise do the right thing) should be 'rewarded' by being guaranteed certain paternal rights, like visitation, involvement in their child's lives, etc.
And at least Obama is talking about these kind of positive changes. While your 'solution' is to uphold the status quo and do nothing, despite the fact that you can see that there is a problem. So if you're looking for "f'n ridiculous," there it is right there.
I can see where Obama is coming from though. Absent fathers cost society a considerable amount of money. If the ROI makes sense, what is your objection beyond ideological grounds? And keep in mind that your approach to the problem, increase law enforcement, also involves the expenditure of money and the invasion of govt into our lives.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

Your logic is bizarrely convoluted. I'm curious, do you believe that enforcement of the law costs nothing? Both in dollars and in govt involvement in people's lives?

Exactly, enforcement is what we lack right now. Ignoring court orders for child support without consequence is easier than ignoring parking tickets. You lose your license exponentially faster for not paying a ticket than you do for not paying child support. How screwed up is that?

THEN ENFORCE THE LAW!!! Why is that so hard for you people to understand? The law IS enforcable - DO IT. Don't just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work and then say we have to pay people to do it.

Are your arguing that the law is not being enforced right now? You would be wrong in that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
THEN ENFORCE THE LAW!!! Why is that so hard for you people to understand? The law IS enforcable - DO IT. Don't just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work and then say we have to pay people to do it.

You're right, but who is going to enforce this law and who is going to pay for it to be enforced to the point where these payments are made to the mothers when they are supposed to be paid? Checks and balances to make sure that such things get enforced properly are not cheap. Someone needs to pay for it and someone needs to make sure that the enforcement actually happens even after it is paid for.

In the end, providing incentives to the fathers to take responsibility on their own could be cheaper than strictly boosting the enforcement. Both need to happen, but the amount that both need to happen and the total cost is what really counts.

No, both don't "need" to happen. More men need to be responsible but it is not the responsibility of the Feds to pay them to be responsible.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic


Are your arguing that the law is not being enforced right now? You would be wrong in that.

No, others were.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I wish I could vote for Obama. I thought Chris Rock and Bill Cosby were the only black men who were being candid about the problems facing blacks.

Why can't you? 😕

I can't vote pro-choice in good conscience.

I can guarantee you that McCain will do no more on the abortion issue than Bush did. Their claims of being anti-abortion are just pandering and lip service to get the religious right vote.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

Your logic is bizarrely convoluted. I'm curious, do you believe that enforcement of the law costs nothing? Both in dollars and in govt involvement in people's lives?

WTF is with you? YOU of all people should be agreeing that this isn't an area the Feds should be sticking their nose into. Sheesh.

BTW, your question makes no sense regarding what I posted. But sense you seem to want to bring law enforcement into this - do we pay people to not speed? Not run stop signs? Not drink and drive? Do we reward people for paying their bills or judgements(which is what child support can basically be)? Hells no. The idea of paying people to do what they are supposed to do anyway is absurd. It's absurd that schools are doing it too. It's just F'n ridiculous.

I of all people understand that the Fed ALREADY has its nose stuck into our lives. Didn't you read what I just posted? You seem to think that enforcement of existing law is somehow non-invasive or cost-free. Sorry, that ain't so.
The idea is to find a better way (i.e. the definition of a solution to a problem). I'm not in favor of rewarding people monetarily for doing the right thing (I can agree with you there), but I do think that fathers who pay their child support (and otherwise do the right thing) should be 'rewarded' by being guaranteed certain paternal rights, like visitation, involvement in their child's lives, etc.
And at least Obama is talking about these kind of positive changes. While your 'solution' is to uphold the status quo and do nothing, despite the fact that you can see that there is a problem. So if you're looking for "f'n ridiculous," there it is right there.
I can see where Obama is coming from though. Absent fathers cost society a considerable amount of money. If the ROI makes sense, what is your objection beyond ideological grounds? And keep in mind that your approach to the problem, increase law enforcement, also involves the expenditure of money and the invasion of govt into our lives.

No, once again you ASSume that status-quo is my goal. It clearly is not. I just think Obama's ideas are incredible stupid on this subject and clearly put the feds into a situation where they shouldn't be. If a state wants to do this - fine, let the people of that state do it and pay for it. Support is a state issue - not a fed issue.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic
Are your arguing that the law is not being enforced right now? You would be wrong in that.

No, others were.

Okay, we're getting somewhere. And exactly how is the law enforced right now? If a father doesn't pay his child support, how do we punish him? Get this... by taking away his ability to earn money. Seriously. We trash his credit, revoke any professional license he might hold, and garnish his wages. So do you see what I'm getting at here?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I wish I could vote for Obama. I thought Chris Rock and Bill Cosby were the only black men who were being candid about the problems facing blacks.

Why can't you? 😕

I can't vote pro-choice in good conscience.

I can guarantee you that McCain will do no more on the abortion issue than Bush did. Their claims of being anti-abortion are just pandering and lip service to get the religious right vote.

Of that I have no doubt. My concern is: If congress somehow passed a resolution that made abortion a state-decided issue, overturning Roe v. Wade, would you veto it?

I think Obama would, and McCain would not.

So I'm voting for McCain.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, once again you ASSume that status-quo is my goal. It clearly is not. I just think Obama's ideas are incredible stupid on this subject and clearly put the feds into a situation where they shouldn't be. If a state wants to do this - fine, let the people of that state do it and pay for it. Support is a state issue - not a fed issue.

Maybe you could provide an alternative? I'm assuming you agree that the state has an interest in fathers following court decisions and in providing for the care of their children. If you think Obama's solution is bad, and that the status quo is bad, how would you change things to accomplish this goal?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, once again you ASSume that status-quo is my goal. It clearly is not. I just think Obama's ideas are incredible stupid on this subject and clearly put the feds into a situation where they shouldn't be. If a state wants to do this - fine, let the people of that state do it and pay for it. Support is a state issue - not a fed issue.

Gee... I'd love for you to explain how I was making an ASSumption when your sole argument up til now was for enforcement of the existing law.
It's pretty much impossible for you to admit to being wrong, isn't it? Maybe if you could learn to think a little outside the box and not kneejerk so much...