-->
@prefix
Some children do not receive financial support.
Do you agree or disagree woth this comment?
Unwed mothers
Posts
Total:
168
-->
@prefix
I feel like we are having a different conversation to one another.
Some nonzero number of children do not receive financial support and the parents cannot be easily identified l, considered financially responsible or both.
Do you agree or disagree with this comment?
-->
@secularmerlin
Some children do not receive financial support.Do you agree or disagree woth this comment?
Yes I agree. But the topic is not "Some children do not receive financial support." but rather from whom?
I feel like we are having a different conversation to one another.
As do I.
Some nonzero number of children do not receive financial support and the parents cannot be easily identified l, considered financially responsible or both.Do you agree or disagree with this comment?
I cannot or disagree with an incoherent statement.
Perhaps you wish to rephrase?
-->
@prefix
the topic is not "Some children do not receive financial support." but rather from whom?
Well aren't those the children under discussion? Like aren't we specifically talking about children who are not receiving proper financial support? I mean is this about the children or the parents because this really feels like the old bait and switch to me.
-->
@secularmerlin
Just because it "feels like the old bait and switch" to you that does not make it real.
-->
@prefix
Ok fine it is what it is bbutbut if the discussion isn't around "what do we do about kids who aren't being supported" then maybe be a little clearer.
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok fine it is what it is bbutbut if the discussion isn't around "what do we do about kids who aren't being supported" then maybe be a little clearer.
My VERY FIRST POST HERE was "06.20.2023 08:20PM
If an unwed mother seeks assistance from the county ( or other governmental agency ) and a father cannot be found, who pays?"
I was seeking information about how the process works.
How hard does the government look for the bio father? Et Cetera.
Little information has come though, mainly just a bunch of off topic whining.
-->
@prefix
a father cannot be found
In this hypothetical the father CANNOT be found. In that case the father CANNOT be forced to pay.
IF the father CANNOT be made to pay AND if children should be taken care of financially regardless THEN someone has to pay.
Unless you know something I don't the fairest way to handle this is for everyone to control a common fund according to their means.
Perhaps you meant to ask about when the father CAN be found but if so you accidentally asked literally the exact opposite.
-->
@secularmerlin
Unless you know something I don't the fairest way to handle this is for everyone to control a common fund according to their means.
Apparently what I know that you don't is the definition of the "fairest way".
Fairest way is
those that do the deed
fill the need
Those the don't
pay not and won't.
for everyone to control a common fund according to their means.
Get real. "Everyone" will not control the fund. A bureaucrat will. That's how government works, and they work without efficiency.
Before we set up a new agency, let's look at the problem.
In 2021 there were 3.7 million births in the USA. Most of these children (60%) are cared for by the married couple.
1.47 million were to "unwed mothers". Most of these children (63%)are cared for by a non traditional extended family.
550,000 need support and most of these (67%) get non governmental child support from families of bio dads.
Leaving about 203,000 cases where the "deadbeat father" is stealing from us. Theft and non support are crimes.
Existing programs with existing funding already handles these cases.
My question, and the reason for this Forum Post, was about these deadbeats.
A review of your comments reveals that you contributed little in addressing these issues, other than calling for more government.
those that do the deed
a father cannot be found
Try hard to follow my logic here. If the father cannot be found then the father cannot be the answer to this question.
Perhaps what you meant to ask to be presented with THE PLAN WHEREBYE PREFIX IS NEVER ASKED TO HELP STARVING CHILDREN. If so I'm afraid I don't have one. Some nonzero number of children through no fault of their's are without family support and if you agree that there is a need for the community to step up and you are a part of that community... well I'll let you draw your own conclusions but the alternative to stepping up is starving children.
Unless of course you are not talking about CHILDREN in need and the actual discussion is about some other humans. Perhaps the children are actually unimportant in the conversation although that seems odd given that the question is how to support children.
control the fund
Typo I meant contribute to the fund
-->
@prefix
Existing programs with existing funding already handles these cases.A review of your comments reveals that you contributed little in addressing these issues, other than calling for more government.
If programs already exist it seems like I'm not calling for anything extra. Are you really reading my posts?
-->
@secularmerlin
the father cannot be the answer to this question.
NO The father is the question to this answer.
Some nonzero number of children through no fault of their's are without family support
Talking about the children's fault is misleading your thinking. It is the biological mom and dad who are at fault.
the alternative to stepping up is starving children.
Talking about the community stepping up is misleading your thinking
I already showed that the community is stepping up ( supporting the 203,000 children per year where the dad is stealing from the community).
that the question is how to support children.
The children are being supported currently, as I stated earlier. You seem to misunderstand the question at hand, which has already been answered.
If programs already exist it seems like I'm not calling for anything extra
Yes you are calling for something extra. Don't you read your own posts?
As a side note read "'Deadbeat' Dad Owes $560,000 in Child Support, Arrested After 20 Years"
Are we done done?
-->
@prefix
NO The father is the question to this answer.
I thought you said we could not find the father? So which is it? Can we find him or not?
It is the biological mom and dad who are at fault.
There is not always fault to be assigned. Sometimes even the most responsible people who do everything possible including but not limited to the practice of safe sex and they still get pregnant. Some nonzero number of people get pregnant through no fault of their own.
I already showed that the community is stepping up
Yes in fact you seem to be arguing that this is the precise problem and you would like to see the degree to which the community steps up to be reduced if not eliminated entirely.
The children are being supported currently, as I stated earlier. You seem to misunderstand the question at hand,
Oh almost certainly I thought the question was "what if the father can't be found?" and it seems instead to be "how can we find all the fathers?". The answer is I'm not sure we can or should. Think there may be a more practical solution that could benefit the average tax payer greatly.
-->
@prefix
Yes you are calling for something extra. Don't you read your own posts?
What specifically am I calling for that is extra? Didn't you say the services I have described are already in place?
-->
@secularmerlin
OKAy
So we are NOT done yet.......
I thought you said we could not find the father? So which is it? Can we find him or not?
The question is not can we find him but rather do we find him. In too many cases we do not. The system is broken.
Some nonzero number of people get pregnant through no fault of their own.
Biology disagrees.
you would like to see the degree to which the community steps up to be reduced if not eliminated entirely.
Yes that is and should be the goal. Period.
there may be a more practical solution that could benefit the average tax payer greatly.
Yes that is and should be the goal. Period.
What specifically am I calling for that is extra?
On July 27 you wrote ..."Perhaps we should collect a public fund maybe even codified into law. A sort of tax if you will. Perhaps since they are noble endeavors we could also use this fund to care for the elderly and support infrastructure. I think this plan has real potential so long as those who earn the most do not find legal loopholes with which to avoid paying a share that is commiserate with their larger earnings. "
That is certainly "something extra".
Don't YOU read YOUR OWN posts?
Now are we done.....or are there more shallow thoughts yet to come?
-->
@prefix
On July 27 you wrote ..."Perhaps we should collect a public fund maybe even codified into law. A sort of tax if you will. Perhaps since they are noble endeavors we could also use this fund to care for the elderly and support infrastructure. I think this plan has real potential so long as those who earn the most do not find legal loopholes with which to avoid paying a share that is commiserate with their larger earnings. "
We already do this don't we? Isn't this precisely what you are calling to abolish?
If not all we are discussing is a matter of degree. In any case I'm not calling for any new ideas here or even ideas not already to some degree being implemented.
The question is not can we find him but rather do we find him. In too many cases we do not. The system is broken.
I agree that the system is broken but perhaps finding destitute fathers and punishing them is not the best use of our fraud prevention resources. But since you brought it up
Ok
Let's say we do find him and he just doesn't have as much money to give as is needed to provide financial support for all his children. Now what? What is your plan for these individuals?
Some nonzero number of people get pregnant through no fault of their own.
Biology disagrees.
It is factually accurate that even if you use multiple forms of birth control sometimes you can still get pregnant. Sometimes despite being reproductively responsible you still get/make someone pregnant.
Also sometimes only one or the other party is behaving irresponsibly and in some subset of those cases whom that is can be unclear.
Also also even if your parents are irresponsible you should not be the one who suffers.
there may be a more practical solution that could benefit the average tax payer greatly.
Yes that is and should be the goal. Period.
Great because eliminating tax shelters and deductions exclusive to corperate interest and the ultra wealthy is a simple practical solution that would benefit the average taxpayers and the children of "deadbeat" dads far more than tracking down anyone.
Now that would cut down on government welfare to those who don't need assistance.
-->
@secularmerlin
Your arguments demonstrate a lack of focus.
"Corporate welfare" and "make the rich pay their fair share" have nothing to do with this discussion.
I mean why not bring up "climate change" and "student debt forgiveness" and "the war in Ukraine" and "what pronouns are required".
More to the point are "welfare for deadbeats" and "make the deadbeats pay their fair share"
You need to understand that if 14 out of 15 children are cared for in a more or less traditional manner, why should the remaining 6% catch a break?
Too many sparkle ponies?
Sometimes despite being reproductively responsible you still get/make someone pregnant.
So then you need to become financially responsible. 94% do......
Now are we done, or is there some endangered species that you somehow want to throw into the mix?
-->
@prefix
More to the point are "welfare for deadbeats" and "make the deadbeats pay their fair share"
Agreed and let's start with
"Corporate welfare" and "make the rich pay their fair share"
As that would have far more positive benefits for the average taxpayers than anything else yet suggested in this thread... unless of course you don't actually care about the average tax payer.
You need to understand that if 14 out of 15 children are cared for in a more or less traditional manner, why should the remaining 6% catch a break?
the 6% of children? Why should the 6% of children not being taken care of be taken care of? Well I don't know if I would call that catching a break it is just the same consideration shown the the other 94%. No one is arguing that one child deserves more than another... unless of course you don't actually care about those 6% of children.
Sometimes despite being reproductively responsible you still get/make someone pregnant.So then you need to become financially responsible. 94% do......
So what you are saying is that the "poors" shouldn't have children?
-->
@secularmerlin
So what you are saying is that the "poors" shouldn't have children
Those that are poor in responsibility should not have children.
When they do they should be made to become responsible.
Being made to be responsible is called by many names....civilization, society, kindness, good parenting, etc
Remaining irresponsible is called "the state of affairs that no one should be allowed to be in".
And when I said "why should the remaining 6% catch a break?" I was referring to the deadbeats and not to the children.
-->
@prefix
Those that are poor in responsibility should not have children.When they do they should be made to become responsible.
What does responsible mean to you in this context? What should a person who is destitute and fathers a child be made to do?
Please be more specific than "be kind" or "get civilized".
-->
@secularmerlin
The answer to all is in the various links that I have sent to you.
-->
@prefix
Maybe you could just say plainly on your own words what you expect. What should a person do if they are destitute and they make another person pregnant?
-->
@secularmerlin
The answer to all is in the various links that I have sent to you, as well as all the previous correspondences.
-->
@prefix
If an unwed mother seeks assistance from the county ( or other governmental agency ) and a father cannot be found, who pays?"
Whoever volunteers.
-->
@Athias
Whoever volunteers.
Let us say no one volunteers. Should children then starve?
Assuming your answer is no children should not starve what is now your answer?
Just curious.
-->
@prefix
The answer to all is in the various links that I have sent to you, as well as all the previous correspondences.
All I'm asking for is a concise statement of your position.
If a person who is destitute gets another person pregnant then what ought happen as a result?
-->
@secularmerlin
Let us say no one volunteers. Should children then starve?Assuming your answer is no children should not starve what is now your answer?
Children shouldn't starve. No one should starve. Whether they do is subject to both their own devices and the devices of others. I would also put forward that no one should be coerced into submitting their time, labor or resources to anyone. Would I maintain this position whether more or fewer persons starved? Yes.
-->
@secularmerlin
By your question it is obvious that you have read neither the totality of my posts nor have you read the links I have sent.
-->
@Athias
Children shouldn't starve. No one should starve. Whether they do is subject to both their own devices and the devices of others. I would also put forward that no one should be coerced into submitting their time, labor or resources to anyone. Would I maintain this position whether more or fewer persons starved? Yes.
So children should not be allowed to starve unless no one feels like feeding them in which case they should in fact starve?