Obama's straight talk on fatherhood

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Xavier434
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.


If the stepson is living with you, how many of his basic needs aren't being met?

None because I am a damn good stepfather, but that doesn't matter. I am not responsible to pay for his needs. That's biological father's and mother's responsibility. Fathers should not be held any less accountable for the child support they owe just because another person is choosing to help pay for their child's needs out of the kindness of their heart. If he paid his child support then his money and the mother's money would be paying for the child's needs while my money is used to pay for everything else. That's the way it should be.

And if the point of the support payment is to ensure the child meets a certain standard, why wouldn't the payment decrease when the child is living with 2 parents whom would assumed to be able to maintain a sufficient household themselves.

Simple. That's the law. The biological parents are the ones who are legally responsible for their own children. That includes all financial responsibilities to meet that child's needs. Just because there are people out there who are kind enough to help out other people's children does not mean that the biological parents should be legally relieved of their responsibilities or have them reduced.

The bottom line here is that someone needs to be legally responsible for the kids. It should always be the biological parents unless those parents prove themselves to be unfit to take care of the children because they are abusive or whatever.

And that's definitely not a law that needs to be looked at and revised. If the father can walk over and see the kid living well sheltered, fed, clothed, and educated, isn't that the responsibility. If you don't want to take some of that burder from him, then don't marry a chick whose already got baggage. Otherwise you are just turning the system into a form of punitive punishment, and that will be the first thing needed to help fix such a broken system.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: lupi

And that's definitely not a law that needs to be looked at and revised. If the father can walk over and see the kid living well sheltered, fed, clothed, and educated, isn't that the responsibility. If you don't want to take some of that burder from him, then don't marry a chick whose already got baggage. Otherwise you are just turning the system into a form of punitive punishment, and that will be the first thing needed to help fix such a broken system.

The law isn't being enforced. That's the problem. It's not about revisions.

The father's responsibility is to provide those things. Not just make sure that someone else is providing it in his place. Especially when the person providing it is only doing so because the real father is a dead beat and he cares for the child. That's complete bullshit.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

Probably because for all the inspiring "Man up, boy! You're a father now!" speeches you can give one of these absentee fathers, you're not going to reach them. Trying something new and different - like tangible benefits awarded to the individual - might.

I find it a little repugnant myself and his wording could be better, but I'm also realistic. Idealism and/or the status quo isn't working.
Yep, these "men", and I use the term loosely, are pretty far from hope. I doubt some cheap handouts from the government will make them "stay", and even if they do, they will be a shtty father who will never love their child. The child would most likely be better off with a loving stepdad or no dad at all IMO.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: OrByte
more goodies from his speech:

The first is setting an example of excellence for our children ? because if we want to set high expectations for them, we?ve got to set high expectations for ourselves. It?s great if you have a job; it?s even better if you have a college degree. It?s a wonderful thing if you are married and living in a home with your children, but don?t just sit in the house and watch ?SportsCenter? all weekend long. That?s why so many children are growing up in front of the television. As fathers and parents, we?ve got to spend more time with them, and help them with their homework, and replace the video game or the remote control with a book once in awhile. That?s how we build that foundation.

from CSG's link.

It will be very interesting to see what kind of exposure this type of talk gets in the african american community. We all know how Bill Cosby splits the african american community down the middle by talking about responsibility and parenting. Will Obama get the same treatment?

At any rate, Obama is saying the right things about parenting and responsibility.
:thumbsup:
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

Probably because for all the inspiring "Man up, boy! You're a father now!" speeches you can give one of these absentee fathers, you're not going to reach them. Trying something new and different - like tangible benefits awarded to the individual - might.

I find it a little repugnant myself and his wording could be better, but I'm also realistic. Idealism and/or the status quo isn't working.
Yep, these "men", and I use the term loosely, are pretty far from hope. I doubt some cheap handouts from the government will make them "stay", and even if they do, they will be a shtty father who will never love their child. The child would most likely be better off with a loving stepdad or no dad at all IMO.

The idea is focused on rewarding fathers for paying support towards their children after a separation has already occurred rather than encouraging an already broken relationship to stay together.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Killerme33
WhipperSnapper, your posts make you sound very bitter towards women. The reason abortion is up to the woman is because they are the ones who get pregnant, not the man.

Then why does the man get the bill?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: 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? :confused:

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.

So you reward with your vote the candidate who is expressly lying to you about your most important issue? :confused:

That makes no sense at all. And opens up avenues of corruption for McCain that I don't even want to think about. If he can lie to you about your key issue, he can lie to you about anything.
You, sir, are what is wrong with the Republican party.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Killerme33
WhipperSnapper, your posts make you sound very bitter towards women. The reason abortion is up to the woman is because they are the ones who get pregnant, not the man.

Then why does the man get the bill?


Sigh...

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What so many people fail to understand is that the child support laws are fair. However, it is not fair between just the man and the woman. It is fair between the man, the woman, and the child.

Stop complaining. You should be thinking more about your child instead of your bank account or your ex wife.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

Probably because for all the inspiring "Man up, boy! You're a father now!" speeches you can give one of these absentee fathers, you're not going to reach them. Trying something new and different - like tangible benefits awarded to the individual - might.

I find it a little repugnant myself and his wording could be better, but I'm also realistic. Idealism and/or the status quo isn't working.
Yep, these "men", and I use the term loosely, are pretty far from hope. I doubt some cheap handouts from the government will make them "stay", and even if they do, they will be a shtty father who will never love their child. The child would most likely be better off with a loving stepdad or no dad at all IMO.

The idea is focused on rewarding fathers for paying support towards their children after a separation has already occurred rather than encouraging an already broken relationship to stay together.

You'd see an upsurge in men who pay support more willingly not by giving them reasons to do it, but by starting to give them fewer reasons not to.

How about more reasonable amounts? How is 25% of a man's income a reasonable amount for a single child?

How about letting the man declare the child as a dependent if they're paying the bills? Is it not enough to rape him with massive payments, but you tax him for it too?

How about allowing for hardship rather than threatening him with jail when he loses his job?

When I was unemployed I had half a mind to move away and change my name. I love my daughter so I couldn't actually go through with something like that, but the state made my life hell and I couldn't find anyone who gave a shit. Everyone in the child support system operates on the mentality men are inherently evil and need to be destroyed.

Until all of you childless, womanless nerds in this thread actually deal with the system, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Killerme33
WhipperSnapper, your posts make you sound very bitter towards women. The reason abortion is up to the woman is because they are the ones who get pregnant, not the man.

Then why does the man get the bill?


Sigh...

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What so many people fail to understand is that the child support laws are fair. However, it is not fair between just the man and the woman. It is fair between the man, the woman, and the child.

Stop complaining. You should be thinking more about your child instead of your bank account or your ex wife.

I think about my child plenty you ignorant little fucking nerd. When you grow up and get a clue, come back. Until then, stuff it.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434

Here is the problem with that idea. While I agree with you that it is a fair way to divide responsibility, the end result would be nothing but more children living in poverty...[/b].

I disagree. Once you make it so it's all a women's responsibility, then their attitudes and behavior will change.

Right now women expect men to take responsibility for out of wedlock children, and it's just not happening. So lets just make it 100% her responsibility. No ambiguity, or false expectations that the sperm donor is going to come galloping to the rescue. Behaviors will then change.
 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,317
0
0
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?

Here's a thought, if you don't want to father a child with someone don't have sex with them. The minute you release the swimmers YOUR choice as a man has been made, you have relinquished control and are gambling on birth control to keep that one night stand from becoming baby-mama number 5.

Lesson - make better decisions about where you stick your wang.
 

Killerme33

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
399
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Killerme33
WhipperSnapper, your posts make you sound very bitter towards women. The reason abortion is up to the woman is because they are the ones who get pregnant, not the man.

Then why does the man get the bill?

Why does the woman have to actually raise the kid? Child support payments do not cover a child's total expenses. The man has responsibility in the form of financial support, and the woman has responsibility in the form of taking care of the kid and providing what child support payments do not cover.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett


You'd see an upsurge in men who pay support more willingly not by giving them reasons to do it, but by starting to give them fewer reasons not to.

How about more reasonable amounts? How is 25% of a man's income a reasonable amount for a single child?

How about letting the man declare the child as a dependent if they're paying the bills? Is it not enough to rape him with massive payments, but you tax him for it too?

How about allowing for hardship rather than threatening him with jail when he loses his job?

When I was unemployed I had half a mind to move away and change my name. I love my daughter so I couldn't actually go through with something like that, but the state made my life hell and I couldn't find anyone who gave a shit. Everyone in the child support system operates on the mentality men are inherently evil and need to be destroyed.

Until all of you childless, womanless nerds in this thread actually deal with the system, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Again, just because you are unemployed doesn't mean your child's needs are put on hold. Maybe you should have done what a normal family does when a member loses their job and there isn't enough money to put food on the table for their kid. You find the money from a different source. You can take a cash advance on a credit card. You can get a loan. You can ask family and friends to borrow money. This is what good fathers do if they care about their children enough to uphold their financial responsibilities to support them.

Oh and if you read the whole thread you would realize that I have a woman and a stepchild that I spend more money on than I should because his father is very reluctant to pay support just like you. Imagine how you would feel if the tables were turned?
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Originally posted by: Xavier434

Here is the problem with that idea. While I agree with you that it is a fair way to divide responsibility, the end result would be nothing but more children living in poverty...[/b].

I disagree. Once you make it so it's all a women's responsibility, then their attitudes and behavior will change.

Right now women expect men to take responsibility for out of wedlock children, and it's just not happening. So lets just make it 100% her responsibility. No ambiguity, or false expectations that the sperm donor is going to come galloping to the rescue. Behaviors will then change.

What kind of changes are you referring to which you believe will completely solve these problems and not result in a lot more kids living in poverty? Changes in behavior to not increase your income. The bottom line here is cash to pay for the child's expenses without putting the family in the poor house.

 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: lupi

And that's definitely not a law that needs to be looked at and revised. If the father can walk over and see the kid living well sheltered, fed, clothed, and educated, isn't that the responsibility. If you don't want to take some of that burder from him, then don't marry a chick whose already got baggage. Otherwise you are just turning the system into a form of punitive punishment, and that will be the first thing needed to help fix such a broken system.

The law isn't being enforced. That's the problem. It's not about revisions.

The father's responsibility is to provide those things. Not just make sure that someone else is providing it in his place. Especially when the person providing it is only doing so because the real father is a dead beat and he cares for the child. That's complete bullshit.

How much of the received money is the women required to spend for care of the child. Some may say that is the exact same type of bullshit.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: lupi

And that's definitely not a law that needs to be looked at and revised. If the father can walk over and see the kid living well sheltered, fed, clothed, and educated, isn't that the responsibility. If you don't want to take some of that burder from him, then don't marry a chick whose already got baggage. Otherwise you are just turning the system into a form of punitive punishment, and that will be the first thing needed to help fix such a broken system.

The law isn't being enforced. That's the problem. It's not about revisions.

The father's responsibility is to provide those things. Not just make sure that someone else is providing it in his place. Especially when the person providing it is only doing so because the real father is a dead beat and he cares for the child. That's complete bullshit.

How much of the received money is the women required to spend for care of the child. Some may say that is the exact same type of bullshit.

The money received is always less than the amount that it costs to support the child. The court system takes a very close look at the child's expenses as well as both the mother's and father's income when deciding how much child support the father must pay. In addition, that number can change if the father/mother requests that the issue be revisited in another court date. They need proof for everything. That way, 100% of the money is always being spent to care for the child.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: 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? :confused:

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.

So you reward with your vote the candidate who is expressly lying to you about your most important issue? :confused:

That makes no sense at all. And opens up avenues of corruption for McCain that I don't even want to think about. If he can lie to you about your key issue, he can lie to you about anything.
You, sir, are what is wrong with the Republican party.

Wait, but you might be lying to me.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

Probably because for all the inspiring "Man up, boy! You're a father now!" speeches you can give one of these absentee fathers, you're not going to reach them. Trying something new and different - like tangible benefits awarded to the individual - might.

I find it a little repugnant myself and his wording could be better, but I'm also realistic. Idealism and/or the status quo isn't working.
Yep, these "men", and I use the term loosely, are pretty far from hope. I doubt some cheap handouts from the government will make them "stay", and even if they do, they will be a shtty father who will never love their child. The child would most likely be better off with a loving stepdad or no dad at all IMO.

The idea is focused on rewarding fathers for paying support towards their children after a separation has already occurred rather than encouraging an already broken relationship to stay together.
Thanks for the clarification.

 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434

The money received is always less than the amount that it costs to support the child. The court system takes a very close look at the child's expenses as well as both the mother's and father's income when deciding how much child support the father must pay. In addition, that number can change if the father/mother requests that the issue be revisited in another court date. They need proof for everything. That way, 100% of the money is always being spent to care for the child.

Maybe in fairy tale land, but reality much less so.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: ElFenix
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?

how often do condoms actually fail?

During typical condom use, 12-13% of women will get pregnant. During perfect condom use, 2-3% will become pregnant.



i thought it was '12-13%' and '2-3%' as likely compared to no protection

12-13% i like the basic odds for just blowing it in a woman, since about 1/2 the time she's not ripe and 3/4 of the time the conceived embryo fails fr one reason or another
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
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? :confused:

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

so you aren't voting then?

Well, I meant pro-abortion.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: lupi

And that's definitely not a law that needs to be looked at and revised. If the father can walk over and see the kid living well sheltered, fed, clothed, and educated, isn't that the responsibility. If you don't want to take some of that burder from him, then don't marry a chick whose already got baggage. Otherwise you are just turning the system into a form of punitive punishment, and that will be the first thing needed to help fix such a broken system.

The law isn't being enforced. That's the problem. It's not about revisions.

The father's responsibility is to provide those things. Not just make sure that someone else is providing it in his place. Especially when the person providing it is only doing so because the real father is a dead beat and he cares for the child. That's complete bullshit.

How much of the received money is the women required to spend for care of the child. Some may say that is the exact same type of bullshit.

The money received is always less than the amount that it costs to support the child. The court system takes a very close look at the child's expenses as well as both the mother's and father's income when deciding how much child support the father must pay. In addition, that number can change if the father/mother requests that the issue be revisited in another court date. They need proof for everything. That way, 100% of the money is always being spent to care for the child.

Lies, lies, lies. The state doesn't look at expenses at all.

25% of your income. Here's your monthly bill. Now get out of my court room.

The mother could be spending it on crack and the state wouldn't give a damn. There are no controls in the system.

I was penniless after being unemployed for a year and the court wouldn't even appoint me a public defender, while mom gets both the county prosecutor and the family justice department on her side. They don't care what income is, only what it was. Their rationale was that if I made a certain amount before, that's what I'm good for now.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: BoberFett


You'd see an upsurge in men who pay support more willingly not by giving them reasons to do it, but by starting to give them fewer reasons not to.

How about more reasonable amounts? How is 25% of a man's income a reasonable amount for a single child?

How about letting the man declare the child as a dependent if they're paying the bills? Is it not enough to rape him with massive payments, but you tax him for it too?

How about allowing for hardship rather than threatening him with jail when he loses his job?

When I was unemployed I had half a mind to move away and change my name. I love my daughter so I couldn't actually go through with something like that, but the state made my life hell and I couldn't find anyone who gave a shit. Everyone in the child support system operates on the mentality men are inherently evil and need to be destroyed.

Until all of you childless, womanless nerds in this thread actually deal with the system, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Again, just because you are unemployed doesn't mean your child's needs are put on hold. Maybe you should have done what a normal family does when a member loses their job and there isn't enough money to put food on the table for their kid. You find the money from a different source. You can take a cash advance on a credit card. You can get a loan. You can ask family and friends to borrow money. This is what good fathers do if they care about their children enough to uphold their financial responsibilities to support them.

Oh and if you read the whole thread you would realize that I have a woman and a stepchild that I spend more money on than I should because his father is very reluctant to pay support just like you. Imagine how you would feel if the tables were turned?

Really? I thought most families tighten their belts in tough times. I didn't have that option. Mom can continue to spend like a drunken whore because her income isn't affected by the economy. They just keep fucking dad over.

And I think your situation is great. I'm glad he's screwing you, if only because it maintains the balance of the universe. For as much as I'm getting screwed, I'm happy to see you get the other end of it.