- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Fugget about it!
Fugget about it!Follow
She is literally taking away my money at the point of a gun.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
So you think someone like my mentally ill sister, who has the functionality of a ten year old and who hears voices constantly, should be out there working?
Let's check the GOP platform....let's see....mentally ill, basically unemployable....here we go, yes, they have a plan. Shot behind the chemical shed, apparently.
Let's check the GOP platform....let's see....mentally ill, basically unemployable....here we go, yes, they have a plan. Shot behind the chemical shed, apparently.
If someone would take a closer look they'd realize that's only done under a very specific set of circumstances when the first exorcism fails, the person is an immediate to risk the health and safety of others, and they can't get a more experienced priest to attempt the ritual again before sundown.
Typical liberal propaganda.
And when you say "immediate risk to the health and safety of others" you include "needs government assistance to house, food, and clothe, correct?
No. The family is expected to provide a crucifix for the ceremony, a supply of holy water from an approved protestant denomination, and a proper set of restraints for the possessed. As long as they can ensure everyone's safety, they can get government assistance for the individual both in between attempts and while the victim recovers from their ordeal.
Edited, Jan 16th 2014 11:30am by someproteinguy
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Smasharoo wrote:
So you think someone like my mentally ill sister, who has the functionality of a ten year old and who hears voices constantly, should be out there working?
Let's check the GOP platform....let's see....mentally ill, basically unemployable....here we go, yes, they have a plan. Shot behind the chemical shed, apparently.
Let's check the GOP platform....let's see....mentally ill, basically unemployable....here we go, yes, they have a plan. Shot behind the chemical shed, apparently.
Or elected governor of a red state.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Catwho wrote:
So you think someone like my mentally ill sister, who has the functionality of a ten year old and who hears voices constantly, should be out there working?
You realize that there's Republicans out there advocating for actual ten year old girls to be out there working, right?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Catwho wrote:
So you think someone like my mentally ill sister, who has the functionality of a ten year old and who hears voices constantly, should be out there working?
You realize that there's Republicans out there advocating for actual ten year old girls to be out there working, right?
They have to learn there is no free lunch somehow!
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
catwho wrote:
They tend to also be bad at paying alimony and child support, unfortunately.
I've heard a lot of horror stories (biased of course) in reference to paying child support and alimony. Those are two laws that definitely need to be changed. For starters, child support should be paid in reference to cost of living of a child, not a percentage of your paycheck or flat rate per child.
I always thought that percentages or flat rates were to keep from taking away all of someone's paycheck so they can afford housing and food.... It's @#%^ing expensive to raise a child.
That's a good point, but there's a cut off where the percentage of your income far surpasses the expenses in raising a child. In any case, the goal shouldn't be to help the parent to save money, but to insure that the child is properly taken care of.
Almalieque wrote:
That's a good point, but there's a cut off where the percentage of your income far surpasses the expenses in raising a child. In any case, the goal shouldn't be to help the parent to save money, but to insure that the child is properly taken care of.
Of course, but if the parent in question can't afford their rent/mortgage because of child support costs, that doesn't help the child at all. It's actually supposed to calculate, based on your income, about how much you would be spending on support for the child if you both lived in the same household. That's assuming that the child would be "properly taken care of," but that's not necessarily the case if both parents have ****** jobs.
Oh, looks like the sockpuppet finally got banned. I'm replying to myself in a few places. 
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
That's a good point, but there's a cut off where the percentage of your income far surpasses the expenses in raising a child. In any case, the goal shouldn't be to help the parent to save money, but to insure that the child is properly taken care of.
Of course, but if the parent in question can't afford their rent/mortgage because of child support costs, that doesn't help the child at all. It's actually supposed to calculate, based on your income, about how much you would be spending on support for the child if you both lived in the same household. That's assuming that the child would be "properly taken care of," but that's not necessarily the case if both parents have sh*tty jobs.
I understand when both of the parents do not have a lot of money, but when the parent does have enough money to support the child, it should be based on the child, not the income. Unless both parents have low income, then the parent who cant afford to care for the child shouldn't have custody of the child. Granted, that should be on a case by case scenario. The fallacy is "The amount of money that you would spend on a child monthly increases as you earn more money".
The fallacy is "The amount of money that you would spend on a child monthly increases as you earn more money".
I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're a man who hasn't had to pay for horseback riding lessons. The idea is to minimize negative impact on the child. Going from private tutors in Bel Aire to public school in Long Beach has a negative impact. It's not a fallacy, at all. Yet again, that point isn't to provide for a child adequately in an objective sense. It's to provide the same lifestyle or as close to it as possible as the child would have had without the marriage dissolving.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're a man who hasn't had to pay for horseback riding lessons. The idea is to minimize negative impact on the child. Going from private tutors in Bel Aire to public school in Long Beach has a negative impact. It's not a fallacy, at all. Yet again, that point isn't to provide for a child adequately in an objective sense. It's to provide the same lifestyle or as close to it as possible as the child would have had without the marriage dissolving.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're a man who hasn't had to pay for horseback riding lessons.
No, because that's not something I would ever spend money on.
The idea is to minimize negative impact on the child. Going from private tutors in Bel Aire to public school in Long Beach has a negative impact.
The standard education of a child is more akin to a public school in Long Beach than a private tutor in Bel Aire. If the concern is minimizing negative impact on the child, then the parents should remain a happy couple. Seems unrealistic? Exactly, divorce is part of life, just like going to public schools. I view the role of the government to ensure the fundamentals of life, not the luxuries.
It's not a fallacy, at all.
You never addressed the point. Just because I make 200k a year, doesn't mean that I would pay more for my child than I would making 50k a year. Forcing me to pay more, just because I make more assumes that I would spend more monthly as my income increases. That is the fallacy.
Yet again, that point isn't to provide for a child adequately in an objective sense. It's to provide the same lifestyle or as close to it as possible as the child would have had without the marriage dissolving.
And yet again, the point of the government is to provide the necessities, not the luxuries. That is why unemployment benefits is merely a hundred dollars a week and not the same or close to your previous pay. What if a parent gets a much lower income job or just decides not to spend excessive money on horseback riding lessons? Is there a government mandate to ensure that your child keeps their gig fiber connection when you disconnect it when you can afford it? As long as you aren't depriving your child the necessities (e.g. food, shelter, clothes, sleep, etc.), the government shouldn't be involved.
Edited, Jan 21st 2014 1:18pm by Almalieque
No, because that's not something I would ever spend money on.
The idea is to minimize negative impact on the child. Going from private tutors in Bel Aire to public school in Long Beach has a negative impact.
The standard education of a child is more akin to a public school in Long Beach than a private tutor in Bel Aire. If the concern is minimizing negative impact on the child, then the parents should remain a happy couple. Seems unrealistic? Exactly, divorce is part of life, just like going to public schools. I view the role of the government to ensure the fundamentals of life, not the luxuries.
It's not a fallacy, at all.
You never addressed the point. Just because I make 200k a year, doesn't mean that I would pay more for my child than I would making 50k a year. Forcing me to pay more, just because I make more assumes that I would spend more monthly as my income increases. That is the fallacy.
Yet again, that point isn't to provide for a child adequately in an objective sense. It's to provide the same lifestyle or as close to it as possible as the child would have had without the marriage dissolving.
And yet again, the point of the government is to provide the necessities, not the luxuries. That is why unemployment benefits is merely a hundred dollars a week and not the same or close to your previous pay. What if a parent gets a much lower income job or just decides not to spend excessive money on horseback riding lessons? Is there a government mandate to ensure that your child keeps their gig fiber connection when you disconnect it when you can afford it? As long as you aren't depriving your child the necessities (e.g. food, shelter, clothes, sleep, etc.), the government shouldn't be involved.
Edited, Jan 21st 2014 1:18pm by Almalieque
Almalieque wrote:
Yet again, that point isn't to provide for a child adequately in an objective sense. It's to provide the same lifestyle or as close to it as possible as the child would have had without the marriage dissolving.
And yet again, the point of the government is to provide the necessities, not the luxuries. That is why unemployment benefits is merely a hundred dollars a week and not the same or close to your previous pay. What if a parent gets a much lower income job or just decides not to spend excessive money on horseback riding lessons? Is there a government mandate to ensure that your child keeps their gig fiber connection when you disconnect it when you can afford it? As long as you aren't depriving your child the necessities (e.g. food, shelter, clothes, sleep, etc.), the government shouldn't be involved.
And yet again, the point of the government is to provide the necessities, not the luxuries. That is why unemployment benefits is merely a hundred dollars a week and not the same or close to your previous pay. What if a parent gets a much lower income job or just decides not to spend excessive money on horseback riding lessons? Is there a government mandate to ensure that your child keeps their gig fiber connection when you disconnect it when you can afford it? As long as you aren't depriving your child the necessities (e.g. food, shelter, clothes, sleep, etc.), the government shouldn't be involved.
Child Support is not Government welfare, so why compare the two?
Edited, Jan 21st 2014 6:46am by TirithRR
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Tirith wrote:
Child Support is not Government welfare, so why compare the two?
Almalieque wrote:
Tirith wrote:
Child Support is not Government welfare, so why compare the two?
Child support isn't anything like the tax-payer funded, government dispersed safety net programs you listed above. The government only gets involved in child support because of legal contractual obligation.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Child support isn't anything like the tax-payer funded, government dispersed safety net programs you listed above. The government only gets involved in child support because of legal contractual obligation.
If it's a law, then the government is involved. Just because it's not at the federal level, doesn't mean it isn't a government mandate. Once again, I'm not saying that the items in the list are synonymous, but they support the aforesaid concept. No one has yet even attempted to counter the argument, only to argue that I'm comparing apples to oranges when my argument is about fruit.
P.S. There's a reason why I mentioned USDA regulations and minimum wages. Do you consider those "tax-payer funded safety net programs"?
Edited, Jan 21st 2014 3:34pm by Almalieque
The reason they are arguing that is because you made it the center of your argument. The Reason you are against the situation is because government is not responsible for luxuries, but just the fundamentals. The problem with this situation is that the government is not providing anything in this situation. You are trying to equate two situations that are in no way analogous. There may be points you could argue around not having as high child support, but the governments role in providing the essentials of life is not one of them.
Edited, Jan 21st 2014 7:41am by Xsarus
Edited, Jan 21st 2014 7:41am by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Decent human beings wouldn't need the government to enforce payments for childcare. Unfortunately, the country is full of deadbeat dads, so it became an either/or proposition: Either force the fathers (or mothers in rare cases) to provide money to raise their children, or else make the burden fall on the taxpayers.
The government only got involved to save themselves money in the process.
The government only got involved to save themselves money in the process.
Almalieque wrote:
P.S. There's a reason why I mentioned USDA regulations and minimum wages. Do you consider those "tax-payer funded safety net programs"?
The government enforces court decided child support. It's not a government welfare program.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Catwho wrote:
Decent human beings wouldn't need the government to enforce payments for childcare. Unfortunately, the country is full of deadbeat dads, so it became an either/or proposition: Either force the fathers (or mothers in rare cases) to provide money to raise their children, or else make the burden fall on the taxpayers.
The government only got involved to save themselves money in the process.
The government only got involved to save themselves money in the process.
I'm not against the law in concept. My proposition is to transition from a flat rate/percentage of income to the average cost of living when the payer reaches a certain level of income. I would much rather save money for my child's first car or for college tuition than give a monthly stipend 3 times of what is necessary to survive, especially if the mom is just spending it on herself.
Elinda wrote:
Yes.
Explain how USDA regulations are the same as welfare.
Elinda wrote:
The government enforces court decided child support. It's not a government welfare program.
I'm not saying that the items in the list are synonymous, but they support the aforesaid concept. No one has yet even attempted to counter the argument, only to argue that I'm comparing apples to oranges when my argument is about fruit.
Catwho wrote:
Decent human beings wouldn't need the government to enforce payments for childcare.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Because they both feed into the overall concept of the government ensuring the necessities for the common citizens.
No. That's not what child support is, *at all*. Child support results from a tort against the child. It derives from common law, which is why you occasionally have weird anachronisms (forcing married men to pay support for children that result from wife's cheating, etc). What child support *is not* is some sort of child welfare provision. It's the paying of damages, plain and simple. The statutory complexity arises from the fact that the court is essentially forced to act in loco parentis because of the obvious conflict on the part of the actual guardian of the child. Again, let me emphasize that the *child is receiving compensation for damages* the child *is not* receiving some sort of general welfare payment. Codified guidelines as to income percentages and the like are all ad hoc and state by state. Society seems to have decided that juries deciding damages in these cases is inappropriate so they're rendered via statue or the bench. That in no way makes them distinct from a normal tort where you run over my foot and I sue you. Enforcement is statutorily singled out occasionally as well because we've decided as a society that children are a unique class and require unique laws. Again, this is arbitrary. We could decide on statutory special enforcement of any damage payment. Malpractice, for example, could have special "deadbeat doc" laws, but this isn't something we've decided to value that way as a society.
Edited, Jan 21st 2014 9:09am by Smasharoo
No. That's not what child support is, *at all*. Child support results from a tort against the child. It derives from common law, which is why you occasionally have weird anachronisms (forcing married men to pay support for children that result from wife's cheating, etc). What child support *is not* is some sort of child welfare provision. It's the paying of damages, plain and simple. The statutory complexity arises from the fact that the court is essentially forced to act in loco parentis because of the obvious conflict on the part of the actual guardian of the child. Again, let me emphasize that the *child is receiving compensation for damages* the child *is not* receiving some sort of general welfare payment. Codified guidelines as to income percentages and the like are all ad hoc and state by state. Society seems to have decided that juries deciding damages in these cases is inappropriate so they're rendered via statue or the bench. That in no way makes them distinct from a normal tort where you run over my foot and I sue you. Enforcement is statutorily singled out occasionally as well because we've decided as a society that children are a unique class and require unique laws. Again, this is arbitrary. We could decide on statutory special enforcement of any damage payment. Malpractice, for example, could have special "deadbeat doc" laws, but this isn't something we've decided to value that way as a society.
Edited, Jan 21st 2014 9:09am by Smasharoo
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Almalieque wrote:
Because they both feed into the overall concept of the government ensuring the necessities for the common citizens. Whether or not it's a FASFA loan, welfare, unemployment benefits, child support, alimony, minimum wages, USDA restrictions, etc.
Alimony and child support don't belong in that list. They're not welfare but more akin to a civil tort or someone having to pay damages to another party for wronging them. Not exactly that, of course, but much closer to it than they are to government funded welfare-style programs.
Edit: I see Smash said about the same, only wordier.
Edited, Jan 21st 2014 8:37am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I see Smash said about the same, only wordier.
I don't have the starry eyed Midwestern optimism of a person who assumes "a civil tort" will be well understood by this audience and not lead to thoughts of delicious cake.
I don't have the starry eyed Midwestern optimism of a person who assumes "a civil tort" will be well understood by this audience and not lead to thoughts of delicious cake.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Well, now it's going in that direction. I could go for a slice of cheesecake now.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Recent Visitors: 379
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (379)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Fugget about it!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC