Rule could cost child support debtors...

Rule could cost child support debtors only income

There are 17 comments on the KPIC story from Feb 26, 2012, titled Rule could cost child support debtors only income. In it, KPIC reports that:

Thousands of poor and disabled men stand to lose their only income next year because of a change in government policy that will allow states to seize every dollar of federal benefits from people who owe back child support.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KPIC.

Since: Feb 07

Whitman,Ma

#1 Feb 26, 2012
A lot of people go on dis-ability to escape their child support obligations. I am all for it, go after their assets, any kind they have. The people who pay the taxes support these people's obligations.
Say it like it is

Woodbridge, VA

#2 Feb 26, 2012
Wise to think twice before sticking it in
Say it like it is

Woodbridge, VA

#3 Feb 26, 2012
Wake up USA wrote:
A lot of people go on dis-ability to escape their child support obligations. I am all for it, go after their assets, any kind they have. The people who pay the taxes support these people's obligations.
The unintended consequence though is that 250,000 men may be left destitute. They may then come on to the state's welfare (instead of the fed) rolls as a result.

Since: Feb 07

Whitman,Ma

#4 Feb 26, 2012
Say it like it is wrote:
<quoted text>
The unintended consequence though is that 250,000 men may be left destitute. They may then come on to the state's welfare (instead of the fed) rolls as a result.
I worked a number of years on the Sheriff's non-support task force and I saw every imaginable excuse for not paying child support. Most of them were living with other women. If they are able to stick in somewhere else then they are able to go to work. I have never felt sorry for anyone I arrested for non-support. When the people get tired of these free loaders and make tham own up to their obligations they will continue to doulbe dip and make the taxpayers pay them and py for their sticking it end. Wake up and see what is really going on. I only wiished I had been a judge instead of a deputy. It would have been like Judge Roy Beans' justice west of the Pecos.
Say it like it is

Woodbridge, VA

#5 Feb 26, 2012
Wake up USA wrote:
<quoted text>I worked a number of years on the Sheriff's non-support task force and I saw every imaginable excuse for not paying child support. Most of them were living with other women. If they are able to stick in somewhere else then they are able to go to work. I have never felt sorry for anyone I arrested for non-support. When the people get tired of these free loaders and make tham own up to their obligations they will continue to doulbe dip and make the taxpayers pay them and py for their sticking it end. Wake up and see what is really going on. I only wiished I had been a judge instead of a deputy. It would have been like Judge Roy Beans' justice west of the Pecos.
My point in mentioning "unintended" consequences is not to garner sympathy for these guys ( I never missed one support payment in the 13 years I was obligated and for me it is a simple question of right and wrong) but to point out that this change in the law might actually cost the state more. It at least is something that should be looked into.
Questioner

Llano, TX

#6 Feb 26, 2012
Say it like it is wrote:
Wise to think twice before sticking it in
Especially if or when politicians curtail birth control.

The traditional answer to most problems is for Congress to grant an Income Tax Credit, but I guess that solutions not for sins of the flesh.
DENG

Nanjing, China

#7 Feb 26, 2012
Rule could cost child support debtors only income

Full story: KPIC

IT'S OBVIOUS THE UNITED STATES NEEDS A MASSIVE JOBS RENEWAL INJECTED INTO THE ECONOMY THERE, EITHER PRIVATE OR GOVERNMENT, OR BOTH, AND IN THE RANGE OF 10 MILLION NEW JOBS IN 2 YEARS.

Since: Feb 07

Whitman,Ma

#8 Feb 26, 2012
Say it like it is wrote:
<quoted text>
My point in mentioning "unintended" consequences is not to garner sympathy for these guys ( I never missed one support payment in the 13 years I was obligated and for me it is a simple question of right and wrong) but to point out that this change in the law might actually cost the state more. It at least is something that should be looked into.
i paid my child support too. If I did not my second wife would have thrown me out.
this bud4u

Hanoi, Vietnam

#9 Feb 26, 2012
DENG wrote:
Rule could cost child support debtors only income
Full story: KPIC
IT'S OBVIOUS THE UNITED STATES NEEDS A MASSIVE JOBS RENEWAL INJECTED INTO THE ECONOMY THERE, EITHER PRIVATE OR GOVERNMENT, OR BOTH, AND IN THE RANGE OF 10 MILLION NEW JOBS IN 2 YEARS.
how is papamao! ;)
Boyz II Bow

Hanoi, Vietnam

#10 Feb 26, 2012

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#12 Feb 27, 2012
Say it like it is wrote:
<quoted text>
The unintended consequence though is that 250,000 men may be left destitute. They may then come on to the state's welfare (instead of the fed) rolls as a result.
How many of their children are on the welfare roles because they refuse to help support them?
Say it like it is

Woodbridge, VA

#13 Feb 27, 2012
PayThat CEO wrote:
<quoted text>
How many of their children are on the welfare roles because they refuse to help support them?
Well, I'm not sure the extra money to be collected here will alleviate that problem but I suspect most if not all are feeding at the trough. A better solution would be to launch a campaign that encourages the unsuccessful to curtail breeding.
Churmudgeon

Ash Flat, AR

#14 Feb 27, 2012
Im all for it. They who are not paying their childrens child support dont care if their children are destitute & on welfare.

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#15 Feb 27, 2012
Say it like it is wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I'm not sure the extra money to be collected here will alleviate that problem but I suspect most if not all are feeding at the trough. A better solution would be to launch a campaign that encourages the unsuccessful to curtail breeding.
I agree. But how do you determine what is "unsuccessful"?
Say it like it is

Woodbridge, VA

#16 Feb 27, 2012
PayThat CEO wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. But how do you determine what is "unsuccessful"?
The ability to pay for kids without the need for welfare assistance

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#17 Feb 27, 2012
Say it like it is wrote:
<quoted text>
The ability to pay for kids without the need for welfare assistance
Again, I agree. But how do you force people to not have children, especially when churches and politicians think every egg and sperm should be fertilized?

“Jesus beat satan”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#18 Feb 27, 2012
They do that crap to women too. Pay child support but if all you got to make money is between ur legs you got to walk the street. We got satanists who run Okla. city that way.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Treasury Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Which woman should be on $10 US bill? Treasury ... 21 hr Valerie 100
News A woman will appear on redesigned $10 bill in 2020 Jun 20 goonsquad 33
News Seattle couple leaves $850,000 estate to US gov... May '15 xplode 2
News China retakes spot as biggest holder of U.S. debt May '15 mjjcpa 22
News US government approves first ferry service to C... May '15 Novus Ordo Seclorum 12
News Obama Administration Approves First Ferry Servi... May '15 WE JUST DONT CARE 2
News Obama administration approves first ferry servi... May '15 The Magnificent L... 1
More from around the web