A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

by SamCogar Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:51 am

WASHINGTON — The House will vote in November on a bill to provide $250 payments to Social Security recipients to make up for the lack of a cost-of-living increase for next year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday

Pelosi said she will schedule a vote on a bill to provide the $250 payments when Congress returns for a lame duck session after the Nov. 2 congressional elections. The payments would be similar to those provided by the government's massive economic recovery package last year.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/house-to-vote-on-682670.html

by Aaron Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:48 am

Not as big a vote buy as this garbage. As a single parent struggling to get by, working and going to school, this garbage infuriates the hell out of me.

http://www.dailymail.com/News/statenews/201009011034

by Cato Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:59 am

Aaron wrote:Not as big a vote buy as this garbage. As a single parent struggling to get by, working and going to school, this garbage infuriates the hell out of me.

http://www.dailymail.com/News/statenews/201009011034

And it ought to infuriate you and believe me when I tell you it infuriates me. While you bust your buns, the politicians use the money they extort from you to give to people that won't make the effort or lack the self-respect to stand on their own two feet. The whole bunch makes me sick.

by Aaron Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:13 am

I talked to a woman yesterday who received a check-that's how I found out about this-and she stated that it infuriates her as well becasue the $1,000.00 was wiped off her ex-husbands back child support that he didn't pay. So we're going to pay toll on a road that should be funded by our tax dollars while our government just gave away $52 million dollars because if they didn't, they would lose it. This is pathetic and indefensible.

by ziggy Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:19 am

If it really does infuriate her, how soon will she send the uncashed check back to the government?

by Aaron Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:34 am

That's about a stupid statement Ziggy. This woman is trying to go to school, living on assistance, raising kids and has a deadbeat ex-husband who just got rewarded by the entitlement mentality you champion and she's pissed because he gets rewarded for being a deadbeat-which I pointed out in my first post and you say she should turn her check back in if she's mad enough. What a dumbass.

by ziggy Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:01 am

How did the ex-husband get "rewarded"? He is not off the hook. He still owes X number of dollars. That she got a government check as an offset to her ex-husbands support obligations does not reduce his obligation by one penny. Instead of being grateful, she choses to use the payment as but one more chance to beat up on her deadbeat ex-husband.

If the government had just stayed out of the picture, her ex-husband would have paid to her his obligations and all would have been fine, right? Right, dumbass indeed.

by Aaron Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:12 am

[quote="ziggy"]How did the ex-husband get "rewarded"? He is not off the hook. He still owes X number of dollars. That she got a government check as an offset to her ex-husbands support obligations does not reduce his obligation by one penny. Instead of being grateful, she choses to use the payment as but one more chance to beat up on her deadbeat ex-husband.

If the government had just stayed out of the picture, her ex-husband would have paid to her his obligations and all would have been fine, right? Right, dumbass indeed. [/quote]

Once again you're making statments you know nothing about. She called child advocate to ensure he would have to pay the $1,000 back to them because for some reason, him being a deadbeat and not taking care of his kids pisses her off and was told he WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY the money back to anyone. His wages will not be garnished, that $1,000 will not be taken from his tax return, he will in no way EVER have to pay that money back as his obligation statment, whcih was $1200 before the stimulus check, now stands at $200. For such a smart feller, you indeed are a dumbass much of the time Ziggy.

by ziggy Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:46 am

Dumbass or not, I know something about how the child support system works. The ex's obligation to pay over the required support dollars will not be reduced by one cent by the actions you have described herein.

by Aaron Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:24 pm

I know how it works as well and what both of us know doesn't matter. This is a special circumstance that had you bothered reading the paper you and educating yourself on, you would know.

[quote]The state is sending out another $19 million in the form of one-time payments of up to $1,000 to families who are owed back child support. That is expected to help about 19,200 families.

The payments are going to families that are living at up to 150 percent of the poverty level, which currently is set at $22,050 for a family of four.

If less than $1,000 in child support is owed, only that amount will be given. If more than $1,000 is owed, families will not receive any more.

The state has never been able to make such payments before, and state officials apparently do not advocate doing so again.

"This is purely because of that additional federal money," Robinson said.[/quote]

I had an indepth conversation with the woman yesterday and she was adamant that the money was coming off what the balance her ex-husband owed and that it would not be collected from future wages from him as back child support normally is.

To be sure, I've done a little digging on this and from the information I've gathered, the state IS NOT going to go after that money from deadbeat parents because if they do, they have to report it back to the federal government and the money goes back to them, not the state, not child advocates office and certainly not to the child.

Despite all that you think you know, on this subject, you couldn't be more wrong. I know that's a tough pill for you to swallow but that's how it is.

by ziggy Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:45 pm

I will need more than your anecdotal non-expertise to swallow that pill.

by Aaron Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:54 pm

As opposed to what, the expertise you provide on a daily basis? Feel free to prove me wrong Professor DA.

by Aaron Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:10 pm

ziggy wrote:I will need more than your anecdotal non-expertise to swallow that pill.

Riddle me this professor. The state paid $19 Million dollars in back child support with federal stimulus dollars. We know that much is true.

You claim that the deadbeat dads and moms who didn't pay this support will still have it collected by the state at a later date.

My question for you is, when the state collects that $19 million dollars from those deadbeat dads, who gets that money?

by ziggy Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:28 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:I will need more than your anecdotal non-expertise to swallow that pill.

Riddle me this professor. The state paid $19 Million dollars in back child support with federal stimulus dollars. We know that much is true.

You claim that the deadbeat dads and moms who didn't pay this support will still have it collected by the state at a later date.

My question for you is, when the state collects that $19 million dollars from those deadbeat dads, who gets that money?

As I understand it, the state gets that money- and treats it as an offset to the money it paid to the mother.

by Aaron Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:57 am

But the money paid to the mother was stimulus dollars that HAD to be spent or returned to the federal government Professor.

Faced with a deadline for using federal stimulus funds, the state Department of Health and Human Resources recently finalized plans for sending out $52 million in one-time benefits.

Why would they now get to keep it? And why was there no mention of the state getting to keep this money in the article?

More than 19,000 low-income parents or guardians will receive up to $1,000 in past-due child support, a first-of-its-kind payment by the state.

The state is sending out another $19 million in the form of one-time payments of up to $1,000 to families who are owed back child support. That is expected to help about 19,200 families.

The payments are going to families that are living at up to 150 percent of the poverty level, which currently is set at $22,050 for a family of four.

If less than $1,000 in child support is owed, only that amount will be given. If more than $1,000 is owed, families will not receive any more.

See Professor. At no time did DHHR Deputy Commissioner Doug Robinson state that this was only an advance and that the responsible parents would be forced to pay back this money. It is only logical to think that as this is a controversial subject, were that the case and the state was getting the $19 million dollars back, Mr. Robinson would have pointed that out. He didn't.

But that isn't what really confuses me Professor. According to you, that state is gaining from this program and if that being the case, why wouldn't they want to do this EVERY year? But according to Mr. Robinson, this is a one time program.

The state has never been able to make such payments before, and state officials apparently do not advocate doing so again.

That makes no sense, does it Professor. After all, if I give you money to pay my bills and then tell you to keep all the money you collect for my services, why wouldn't you jump on the chance to do that, and why wouldn't the state, particularly given that the state can is guranteed the money back from all willing to work?

But if they do get to keep it as you understand Professor, what can they spend that money on? After all, it is still stimulus dollars, which comes with strings attached on how the money is spent.

by ziggy Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:56 pm

I don't know the answer to all of your questions. My point was that, contrary to your earlier suggestion, none of this lets the deadbeat dad ex-husband off the hook for even one cent.

by ziggy Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:20 pm

ziggy wrote:I don't know the answer to all of your questions. But the article suggests that the state might be "laundering" federal money via child support recipients. My point was that, contrary to your earlier suggestion, none of this lets the deadbeat ex-husband off the hook for even one cent.

by Aaron Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:59 pm

Sorry Ziggy but it seems one with such an understanding as you claim should know the answers to my questions. Without something more substantial, I'm going to need something more then your anecdotal non-expertise as I don't believe the bullshit you spout.

You are right about one thing though. As we both know Barrack Obama is not going to give this state, which handed him his two most embarrasing defeats antying, the federal government is not going to simply hand over to the state $19 Million so you are correct, deadbeat dad's are not off the hook for one red cent.

They are off the hook for up to 100,000 of them apiece for a sum of 1,900,000,000.00 red cents, but not one cent.

by ziggy Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:29 am

And the deadbeat ex-husband is still not off the hook for one cent even. I don't know all the answers. Why can't you just be honest enough to admit that you don't either?

by Aaron Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:16 pm

Unlike the bullshit you're trying to pass Professor, my anecdotal non-expertise is based on what what I was told and then verified with the governing agency. While you might not believe that, in the world of journalism, that would be enough to go to print.

You can choose not to believe it if you like but it's more then the bullshit you've offered which leads me to believe don't have a frigging clue as to what you're talking about.

The way I see it until you can provide something substansive that contradicts what I'm saying, your just another gasbag spouting tripe and the deadbeat ex is still getting off the hook.

by ziggy Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:03 pm

I'll wager that the "governing agency" did not tell you nor anyone else that the ex-husband's support obligation has been reduced because of this state check payable to the recipient. Even the link you provided gives no indication whatsoever that this was/is the case.

by Aaron Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:23 pm

As I told you on Friday, I called a woman with the child advocacy office and after 3 I don't knows, I finally got to a supervisor and she said it was her understanding that the money would not be recovered from the parent who owed. That's more then you've offered here other then your normal bullshit.

As for the link, it is a Daily Mail newspaper article and it also made no mention of the fact that the state would get to keep the money it received from those in arrears. What's your point on that Professor?

If you want to choose not to believe that, I really don't care as based on who you are, your opinion is meaningless.

by ziggy Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:00 pm

I called a woman with the child advocacy office and after 3 I don't knows, I finally got to a supervisor and she said it was her understanding that the money would not be recovered from the parent who owed.

Of course it won't. That is because the CAO has no authority to increase the amount of child support money owed- just as it has no authority to reduce the amount of child support money owed. The deadbeat dad owed X numbers of dollars of child support, and he still owes that same X number of child support dollars. Only the Court that set the amount of child support money owed can change that.

by Aaron Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:00 pm

ziggy wrote:
I called a woman with the child advocacy office and after 3 I don't knows, I finally got to a supervisor and she said it was her understanding that the money would not be recovered from the parent who owed.

Of course it won't. That is because the CAO has no authority to increase the amount of child support money owed- just as it has no authority to reduce the amount of child support money owed. The deadbeat dad owed X numbers of dollars of child support, and he still owes that same X number of child support dollars. Only the Court that set the amount of child support money owed can change that.

Well hell Professor, there's the problem. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Unless both parents agree to a specified amount, a court does in fact set the amount of child support. On that part, you are right. Of course, all they do is plug numbers into a formula based on Mom's income, dad's income and days with each parent. That's also how they set custody as to whether it's joint or single.

From there you're just flat out wrong. In fact, you couldn't be any more wrong as the driving force behind the establishment of the CAO was to reduce the amount of court time required every time one parent desired a change in child support from another. So they do in fact make adjustment to payments for a number of reasons including an increase or decrease in either parties income, time spent with each parent and amounts of arrearage one parent owes. CAO is also responsible for monitoring child support arrearage and once a parent is no longer in arrears, CAO must legally modify the amount of payment.

I'd say nice try but then I'd be lying. It's clear your as lost on this issue as you are most others. The phrase "...dumber then a box of rocks" comes to mind. I suggest you brush up on your knowledge and try again Professor.

by ziggy Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:02 pm

As for the link, it is a Daily Mail newspaper article and it also made no mention of the fact that the state would get to keep the money it received from those in arrears. What's your point on that Professor?

No point at all on that. I just tried to answer your direct question about it from the information available. The state might be "laundering" federal $$$$$$$ through child support recipients.

by Sponsored content

A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?

Re: A Senior Citizen 'con' or a 'vote buy'?