Would you vote for someone that included this in his platform?

[Southern Marylander]

======================================================================
And for Child Support the law puts deadbroke parents into jail and prison for 3 years State time or 5 years Fed time and that needs to be stopped. It would be cheaper by far if the State went ahead and payed the child support and then at least it would get paid.

=======================================================================
I will supply a link to his candidates website in a few posts, but let me just say this.
He is running in maryland for an office in southern maryland.

His theory is that child support is not needed, and in fact is only used to purchase extras by the parent that has the children.
He claims that no children are suffering due to support not being paid, and that the government should pay the support from our taxes, and allow the non supporting parents to go on with life having no financial responsibility for the children they helped bring into the world.

what do you all think?

would you, or could you vote for someone that is so cold toward children?

[madeline_con]

1. I think the guy's an idiot.

It's a known fact that a lot of kids live in poverty after divorce.

When these parents go to jail, do they have to work to pay the support?

[Geoff R. Casavant]

2. I don't think that's what he's saying

He's arguing against imprisoning deadbeat parents, not absolving them of responsibility altogether. He makes a valid point that it costs more to imprison the parent than most folks would owe in support.

Gotta say I agree with him -- if nothing else, if you imprison a person, that person can't earn money to pay support.

[Maddy McCall]

5. Most deadbeats will do anything to avoid paying child support.

Skipping from state to state. Working a job until the boss gets a garnishment notice, then quitting and finding another job.

It was the threat of jail that forced my ex to enter negotiations to sign away all of his parental rights. Best thing that ever happened. He had hever visited my son. He had never paid support. He hadn't done ANYTHING.

He called me and told me to "call off the dogs," and voluntarily offered to sign away all parental rights.

Our life is much better because of it.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

8. You make a good point as well

Perhaps I need to adjust my position to accommodate -- perhaps not a straight 3 or 5 year sentence, but a series of one month at a time suspended sentences -- every 30 days he shows up and either promises to get a job and make the payments, or it's off for another 30.

Thoughts?

[laheina]

12. What about probation and community service?

If they had to go work an the weekend-and had a legal obligation to do it--they'd probably start paying their child support. And for those that couldn't afford it, they'd be working off the state's investment in their children's care.

Just a thought.

[rucky]

34. Money can't buy that peace of mind.

My sister-in-law just did the same thing & feels so much better. Now she's working on changing her daughter's last name.

[Dave Reynolds]

3. I do not agree with his stance.

I just got done paying child support (over $100,000 over the years).

I agree that jail time does not get the support paid, though. However, if the non-payer refuses to work and pay, then they may as well be in jail.

I would have to see what else this candidate stood for, though. I doubt his stance is one that would be agreed on by other policymakers, making it his own personality flaw unlikely to be translated into state law. While his position is rather crass, I try not to be a single-issue voter.

[Maddy McCall]

4. Hell, NO.

The reasons why are self-evident.

[fed-up]

6. More bad laws by men4men-His theory is that child support is not needed nt

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. Absolutely not. That's the stupidist thing I've ever heard

edited cause I read it wrong too.

He's still an idiot. Growing up, my Mom was supposed to recieve $90 per mo. from my dad (1970's) if that check didn't show up, we ate potatoe soup and grilled cheese.

What happened to personal responsibility? That's what we're bitching that the Repugs aren't owning up to, why would we let someone get away with not helping support their own children.??

Putting them in jail is a stupid idea too, it just guarantees that the kids won't see any money and costs a fortune, all going into the pockets of the corporate prison system.

Take away their drivers licence, garnish their wages, put it on their credit report, tell their mothers.

[Orangepeel]

9. I'm always wary of second-hand descriptions of what a candidate thinks...

but as you describe it, it sounds like a very bad idea

[Southern Marylander]

14. Those are his words

Let me check with the other site and see if it would be ok to link some of his posts for you all to read.

[radio4progressives]

10. even the most rabid brained lunatic wouldn't be that stupid..

I mean please.. you're not serious?

[radio4progressives]

11. who is this guy? n/t

[Southern Marylander]

13. here is his website address for the campaign. With his permission.

http://www.electcusick.bravehost.com/

That is his official website.
I do have his permission to put it here as I did tell him that I was going to post his thoughts on DU and see what everyone thought of him.

this guy is a real piece of work.
and yes, he is for real.

read his bio on the page. First make sure you dont have any drink in your mouth as it sucks to have to clean off the monitor.

[Kierkegaard]

16. God help the community that harbors such a sharp knife.

This has to be a rePunk plant to make Dems look bad. It just has to...

[Orangepeel]

29. or, he's just a nut

:shrug:

It is both a blessing and a curse that the party can't stop people from calling themselves a member of the "Democrat Party".

[sandnsea]

15. I support a child support pool

So a man who can't afford to pay child support goes to jail. A woman who can't support her kids goes on welfare. The man has to pay back the child support to the state for the time the woman is on TANF. The woman doesn't have to. Aren't they both equally responsible, or irresponsible?

So I support an automatic child support pool that everybody who is working and has kids pays into, with high enough payments that nobody working has to be on any program. It doesn't prevent non-custodial parents from doing the right thing and providing more to their children, or from including laws that target wealthy parents.

[Southern Marylander]

17. That does not work for me.

basically, you want me to pay the support for a deadbeat, and by doing so you expect my child to maybe go without something they need?

were do all of these dollars come from when people are required to support a program such as this?
what if someone is already living at the edge but making it. This type of a payment could be the difference between them keeping their home or losing it.

not everyone is as rich as you must be.

[sandnsea]

18. No

I expect you to pay a percentage of your salary into a pool, so that your child will receive a guaranteed check, no matter what happens to you or your job, or the income of the other parent of your child. If the percentage is fair, and automatic, then there will be plenty of money in the pool so that no child will risk becoming homeless.

What we're doing now isn't working, and no I'm not rich which is why I can see how stupid the current system is.

[Southern Marylander]

19. ok, so now I am feeling just a bit slow

What the hell are you talking about?

it sounds like you are suggesting taking money out of my families income to put in a group pool that will pay the support of children other than my own.

I already put a percentage of my income into an account that will take care of my family should something happen to one of our incomes.

I also pay for life insurance.

But, it sounds like you want me to pay into a fund of some sort that will be used by others?

so, do I drop my savings account or my life insurance to pay the premium on the pool that I will never swim in?

[sandnsea]

20. Do you receive child support?

Do you pay child support? If you receive child support, you'll continue to receive an amount set by the state, same as everybody else. All non-custodial parents pay into a pool. Our current system is not working because our low wages do not leave non-custodial parents with enough income to live on, just look at the percentiles for low income earners, it's huge. Custodial parents don't have enough either, and end up with federal assistance. If child support was a flat percentage of income, then all non-custodial parents would be paying in, and all children would receive support.

I received $100 a month child support for my son. My husband had to pay $200 a month for his son. My son actually had to do with less, all dependent on the state and judge involved in the child support case. It's not a reasonable system, with so many divorces these days. Better that all non-custodial parents pay a flat rate and all kids receive a flat rate so nobody is left in poverty.

[hughee99]

21. Are you talking about all parents or just all non-custodial parents

paying into the pool?

[sandnsea]

22. Depends on practicality

Non-custodial parents to start, to see if that was sufficient to meet the need. There's also the issue of non-custodial parents deserving to have a nice place for children, especially those that have equal time with the kids. Why does one parent have more of a right to a decent home than the other, consider the changes in joint custody, etc. What about the non-custodial parent being able to have water, power, food, for when the kids come. So how is it fair for a custodial parent who makes the most money not to have to help the non-custodial parent provide a decent place for the kids to visit as well. Kids deserve two involved parents. Then, like I said, if both parents are equally responsible for the care of the kids, then why is the parent on welfare not called a deadbeat, especially if the non-custodial parent IS paying their child support. When that parent goes back to work, why shouldn't a percentage of their income go into the child support pool, since the non-custodial parent has to pay it back when they're out of work. I'm just talking about men and women both accepting economic and emotional responsibility for parenting, they're both important.

[Southern Marylander]

25. let me try to ask this in a simpler way

I am married, I have one child.
I am not divoriced, I live in the home with my wife and child and I support my child.

are you saying that even though all of those conditions are met in my case, that I should be paying into a fund to take care of the children of the deadbeat parents?

[sandnsea]

51. No

I'm talking about some way to streamline and equalize the system so that single parents are paying for the support of their own kids. ALL single parents. It's just become bizarre to me that in this day and age a dad who doesn't support his kid is a deadbeat but we have nothing but sympathy for a woman on welfare. I mean I understand the cultural history here and single parenting is incredibly difficult, but we've got to do better all the way around. Statistics show that if you can keep young fathers involved, eventually the economics will kick in and the kids will be better off. We need to get this happening sooner and from the women as well. That's why I was thinking a child support pool might be a better way to go. Just a flat percentage deducted from any parent of any child that receives the support, and then a flat rate child support for all kids, enough to lift every child out of poverty.

[hughee99]

44. I'm just wondering about parents not involved in a divorce,

or those who are not parents at all?

[sandnsea]

50. They don't pay anything n/t

[rucky]

35. That's a really good idea.

then the woman can completely cut off contact and not worry about it all.

[loudsue]

23. Under his picture: "As A Member Of The DEMOCRAT Party"....

just another freeper in Dem's clothing. This infiltrator can go take his candidacy and shove it.

:kick::kick::kick:

[tkmorris]

24. You are being disingenuous in the extreme

First of all, this "candidate" has about as much chance of winning his race as I do of finding a foot of snow in my Delray Beach back yard in the morning. In short, none. Why he calls himself a Democrat I have no idea but it isn't because he identifies strongly with the party platform. It is all moot however as he is just a vanity candidate in the first place.

Secondly, you completely misrepresent his position. His point, as he makes it himself, is that it is counterproductive to jail so called deadbeat parents for the crime of not POSSESSING the funds the pay the court ordered support amount. Refusing to pay is different, as is avoiding payment through quitting jobs where wages were garnished etc. He does NOT state that child support is not needed, nor that no children are suffering due to non-payment. His primary point seems to be that jailing people for non-compliance usually results in people going to jail for the crime of being poor. He is suggesting REFORM of the child support system, not throwing it out. He seems to be expressing a preference (albeit poorly) for a percentage of income based payment. Your portrayal of his poorly worded position is so spun it borders on slander.

Third, I have to wonder just what your agenda is. I mean, I can dig up Democrats I don't agree with that no one ever heard of with goofy looking websites and un-proofread position statements too but, especially when it's not even a serious candidate, why would I bother? The man is not representative of Democrats, and will not win, so what's the point exactly? What picture are you trying to paint here?

I wouldn't worry about this guy. As messed up as Southern Maryland is (I know, I spent a large chunk of my life in La Plata and Waldorf), he won't finish in the money and I suspect he knows that.

[Southern Marylander]

27. I think you misunderstand my motive here.

The Candidate in question is running for office and vowing to spend only 1000 dollars to win.
People on the other site have been slapping him around (myself included) for his platform ideas.
He honestly, or so he says, expects to win the election. He claims that elections are won on the last few days of a campaign and that he will be victorious.

Now as far as why I did post this here (with his permission) is that As a more or less new member of the democratic party, well, in the last 5 years aided with the assistance of the Bush administration, I had to know what the majority of democrats actaully thought about this guy.

I think he is a nutcase.
I see that many of you do too.
this is a good thing, I was running out of political parties to be associated with and dont really feel like starting my own. LOL

now dont get me wrong. I have no issue using some of my money to make sure children do not go with out the necessities like shelter food medical,and toys at christmas and birthdays, but I am not sure I can agree with the government just paying for children with deadbeat parents without trying in some way to either limit the number of payment skippers by threat of jail etc...

In the end its not really about me, or JPC or anyone else here, it is about everyone making sure that children are cared for and given every chance possible to achieve in life.
In the same sense, we can not create a program that will in any way make it attractive to the would be dead beats not to pay their share of their childs expenses.

marriage counsling is much cheaper than paying for two homes.
maybe that is what the government should offer instead of a free ride for the deadbeat.

Oh, and let me add this.
While JPC was running around avoiding payment of his support, his wife was dying of cancer.
He allowed his child to go without while losing his mother.

Currently, if he is being honest.
he is living in a government assisted home.
he is using the library computer and free websites to do his campaign work.

I guess I should be happy that our system allows for anyone to run for an office regardless of qualifications.

[noamnety]

26. Not enough information

I'm deliberately not reading the other posts before giving my first impression, so some of this might be answered in other responses. If he's looking at what benefits the children most, then yes, having the government step in and pay benefits the children more than putting the deadbeat parent in jail, which doesn't directly help support the children at all. So I understand the logic there.

It's not clear if he's advocating no punishment for deadbeats, or no punishment for deadbeats that have no ability to pay, which I agree in some cases might be unreasonable. If a parent loses a job, has health issues that prevents them from working, they can't find a new job (a distinct possibility in this economy), then the solution is either to ignore the needs of the child and punish the deadbeat for circumstances beyond their control (current situation), or have the state step in and pick up some of the burden (what appears to be the proposed solution).

There would have to be some tweaking for it to be completely acceptable to me. For instance, I'd rather see a support system that guarantees a set minimum amount for ALL kids, whether or not there is divorce or support money involved, and I certainly wouldn't want the state to pay more for rich kids than poor, which is how child support is set up (the rich pay more). But also, there is some tweaking required for the current system to make it acceptable to me, as mentioned above - jailing people for nonpayment if they don't have the means to pay seems absurd and counterproductive.

I don't understand the logic that says child support isn't needed, it's just used for luxuries - yet the taxpayers should pick up the tab. I'd want to see the direct quotes from the candidate, because my gut feeling is that something's been lost in translation. So I wouldn't rule out voting for someone based solely on your initial post.



Edit after reading his website now:

I probably wouldn't vote for him, but not because of the child support stance, which I don't believe was properly represented in the OP. I couldn't find any specific stances on the issues I disagree with (pro-choice, pro-environment, anti-slave to big business and unnecessary military buildup). The quality of the writing on the website, however, is unprofessional and badly in need of editing and proofreading. He comes off as less educated and intelligent than the ideal candidate, as a result of the writing style. The maxim section in particular rambles without making a clear point, and ought to be deleted, or at least boiled down to three or four statements. I wouldn't want an official to represent me if they can't stay on topic and focused while debating an issue - an official campaign website isn't the place for stream of conciousness rants. Likewise, the bio, obviously, should summarize his child support issues concisely, and should be a small part of his bio. I would hope his identity doesn't entirely revolve around an inability to pay child support.

[Southern Marylander]

30. Some JPC quotes in his exact words on child support

Because all of the children are fine and taken care of. The child support is based on nothing. We do not have children in need because of their parents. Plus, providing welfare is part of the U.S. Constitution and children on welfare are cared for.

Excluding physical abuses, of course.
===========================================================
There are no children in need in the USA because of a lack of child support, no, not one. All the children are taking care of and provided for. There are no sub-human parents, excluding mental illness.

What the child support is collecting is only extras.
===============================================================
The point being is that all the children are fine and cared for and child support is only extras.
=============================================================

[noamnety]

32. can you provide links for that? (nt)

[Southern Marylander]

33. let me ask the admin of that site

to see if I can make direct links.

but, he is posting on http://forums.somd.com
Im pretty sure that it is ok for me to post the link to a public forum that is open to anyone that wishes to open it.

just search for JPC and then follow his posts.
You will find that I am not making any of this up.

[noamnety]

46. After reading the first 10 pages or so

I can honestly say I would be ashamed to be any of the posters in that thread.

The specifics I disagree with JPC on are:

1. Some children are indeed living in poverty and doing without necessities. He's touched on that in some points, and denied it in others. I wouldn't vote for a candidate who can't understand that some children, including those of deadbeat parents, are indeed doing without. It only makes sense that if he comprehends that some noncustodial parents CAN'T make ends meet, that he should understand some custodial parents also can't make ends meet. When that happens, of course the kids will be doing without.

2. Some parents, unfortunately, do not give a damn about their kids. It's a head-in-the-sand approach to believe that ALL nonpaying parents are trying to do their best for their children. Human nature being what it is, some people are just full of greed and revenge, and have more interest in screwing over their ex than in caring for a child they may not have even wanted in the first place. Having sex does not equal wanting to sacrifice for a child for 18 years. That's the harsh reality. He ought to acknowledge that.

The specifics I agree with him on:

1. Some child support is indeed above and beyond what's required for caring for a child. The support my ex paid to me was, for years and years, $80 a month. That didn't begin to meet half the costs, of course, and we did without some basics because of it, including health care/health insurance. On the other extreme, I've heard of cases where support might be thousands a month. That's obviously more than a typical child (without special needs) can consume in a month, and unless the child and custodial parent are jetsetting around the world wearing diamonds, I'm hard-pressed to find a reasonable justification for it, other than the other parent makes a lot of money, so the custodial one feels in a vague hand-waving sort of way that they are entitled to it. It's like Mount Everest - one must climb it (consume it) because it's there.

2. The state ought to be providing the most basic welfare for children. This is a separate issue from both parents having an obligation to support their children, but in an ideal world, if one or both parents fails to provide for their children, there would be a safety net. It's not there, he's right that it should be.

3. There are some people who are, in fact, unable to pay court ordered child support, just as some people are unable to pay their own medical bills. Any informed democrat I think understands the realities of poverty in America, where the majority of the people who file for bankruptcy aren't doing it because they are lazy bums, but rather because some crisis arose that put them over the edge, and no matter how hard you try to squeeze the blood from those turnips, it's just not there. If we as a whole agree that deadbeat dads should all be imprisoned whether or not they have the ability to pay, than we ought to, as a group, also agree that everyone who files for bankruptcy should be imprisoned, regardless of their ability to pay. And I know I'm not ready to sign up for that.


Moving on, let me just say that I am completely appalled at the people on that forum who are "debating" him, and I use that term loosely. As an outsider reading it, I find those posts to be on the level of debate that I expect to find from freepers. I saw people claiming that he's not "a real man" because he got divorced, and not one person saying "wait, hang on, that's out of line." I saw a level of discourse that amounted to little more than slinging insults - grammar police, massive name calling (slug, mental amoeba, "you an idiot, plain and simple", "effin moron", "azzwipe", jokes about eugenics and forced sterilization, jokes glorifying prison rape, etc.), Bill O'Reilly style "shut the F up". If that's the best democrats have to offer in a debate, God help us. So while respectfully disagreeing on several key issues, I will give JPC some credit for rising above that and not responding in kind, at least in the pages I read.

[noamnety]

52. Oh, thank God, they ARE freepers.

not the guy being talked about here, but the others.

"here is to 4 more years of Repub rule"

I was having some severe cognitive dissonance trying to understand why democrats would be resorting to name calling and rape jokes rather than posting a reasoned argument. That's too funny.

[Cerridwen]

28. Only someone who has never been a parent to his/her children

would think that child support is a waste. And just out of curiosity, why would he begrudge "extras" for children even if that were the case which I know is not always, nor even frequently, the case?

I do NOT understand the hatred and disgust for children, so many in this country, appear to have.

But then, this could just be a "symptom" of hating/fearing women (still the majority of single parents), especially those who are not able to "take it like a man" and "stand on their own two feet."

[electron_blue]

40. Most non-custodial parents think they're being "had" and that the extras

are going as much to the custodial parent (typically a woman) and not to the child. I think this is another issue this politician is using to grind his ax.

I think the idea of a pool is good, espeically if it does help raise children out of poverty. I don't like the idea, however, that this might mean my kid would receive considerably less. My problem, I guess, and maybe it means I'm selfish.

There also seems to be a mentality of non-custodial parents who don't pay child support that they should *not* have to take a job beneath their dignity, or training level. I think w/o the threat of jail, these deadbeat dads will continue to float waiting for the perfect opportunity to land in their lap (or wait for the next woman to come save them). Gosh, do I sound bitter?

[Southern Marylander]

31. In all fairness

I informed JPC that this thread was here, and he read it.
his first response to me was

Quote*Well you failed to put my website there for them to see first hand so they are only responding to your dribble.

Start a new thread and give the whole story, or give it up. Quote*

Of course, I did add his website so that part of his request is completed.
He seemed upset that I did not start this in the Maryland section, Maybe I should have. What I was looking for was a broad reaction to his stance, and I thought that this area would attract a greater array of minds to comment on this.

I also suggested to JPC that if I was not representing his stance correctly, that he come in and clear up my errors. I honestly do not think that twisting his words, or lying about what he says is needed, and to be honest, I wont do it intentionally.

[electron_blue]

41. who is jpc?

[Coexist]

36. gee - cite an inflammatory position - and say "would you vote for him"

I knew immediately he must be a Democrat - you would have included the link in the OP otherwise. You don't need permission to post a link to a website.

Nice try.

[Southern Marylander]

37. I would not link to your posts

without permission either.
I might copy and paste a segment of it and tell where it came from, but I would NOT give a direct link for them to click on and go to.

[Coexist]

39. why not?

[noamnety]

47. If you're going to quote me, I prefer a direct link

so my posts aren't taken out of context. Quoting a line or two without allowing the reader to get clarification is a poor tactic.

[electron_blue]

38. He's an idiot, and clearly doesn't know the facts

Deadbroke/deadbeat dads are one of the main reasons so many children are living in poverty in the U.S.

And the threat of jail is the ONLY thing that got my ex to co-operate with child support.

[electron_blue]

42. Who is suggesting this?

Who are you talking about? Name or link, pls.

[Coexist]

43. he/she doesn't believe in posting links without permission. n/t

[electron_blue]

45. I wish I'd known that before I wasted my time

This could be made up for all we know.

[noamnety]

48. Here's the direct link to the posts on the other forum

lengthy child support enforcement discussion (warning: consists mainly of trolling rather than serious debate, imho): http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=68801
discussion of this DU thread on that forum: http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=69252

[electron_blue]

49. thanks, okay, so this is from someone running for office, nothing

seriously being proposed (at this time).