local reason to carry

sudden valley gunner · Nov 29, 2012

compmanio365 said:
This is going WAY off topic but even when DNA evidence is proven that it isn't the man's kid, there are many cases where the guy still has to pay child support. They say it's so the kid doesn't suffer, but it's because child support is a big revenue generator. The state makes lots of $$$$ off of child support. It's the only place in America where we still have debtors prison. I can see, although not condone, why a man would lose his mind over a bad divorce and unfair child support payments, etc. The state doesn't make it easy to get past a bad divorce and move on, even without kids. With them, it's damn near impossible to put it behind you.

+1 And many more cases were judges and lawyers and prosecutors etc.....ignore our "no fault" laws and side with the female. It has to do with revenue or trying to appear Chivalrous(?)

When I went through my divorce I got rid of most my weapons, not for fear of what I would do but for fear of what she would do and how she would manipulate the system.

Anonymouse · Nov 29, 2012

compmanio365 said:
This is going WAY off topic but even when DNA evidence is proven that it isn't the man's kid, there are many cases where the guy still has to pay child support. They say it's so the kid doesn't suffer, but it's because child support is a big revenue generator. The state makes lots of $$$$ off of child support. It's the only place in America where we still have debtors prison. I can see, although not condone, why a man would lose his mind over a bad divorce and unfair child support payments, etc. The state doesn't make it easy to get past a bad divorce and move on, even without kids. With them, it's damn near impossible to put it behind you.

That's why you don't sign the birth certificates without getting a DNA test first. Signing the birth certificate is considered accepting the child as yours...

ETA: oops forgot something.

And don't participate in the raising of the child either.

I haven't seen a case where someone that did not perform those two acts was forced to pay child support.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

sudden valley gunner · Nov 29, 2012

Anonymouse said:
That's why you don't sign the birth certificates without getting a DNA test first. Signing the birth certificate is considered accepting the child as yours...

ETA: oops forgot something.

And don't participate in the raising of the child either.

I haven't seen a case where someone that did not perform those two acts was forced to pay child support.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Civil law in Washington the burden of proof is law, basically if the judge believes a partner (statistically females) that partner wins. (Even when male has proof to contrary)

From my understanding judges pretty much make up their mind before they even get into court.

Freedom1Man · Nov 29, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
Civil law in Washington the burden of proof is law, basically if the judge believes a partner (statistically females) that partner wins. (Even when male has proof to contrary)

From my understanding judges pretty much make up their mind before they even get into court.

Back to the point, no matter what party "wins" money is still a motive for murder.

The state creates the friction no matter what side "wins."

Considering I have read the federal child support laws and the child support laws of the state of Washington. I know Washington's DSHS/DCS is not following the laws at all. Combined that with the friction, the lack of equality in the system, the serious lack of due process, etc. I see the state as being the cause of the woman's death.

I see the only way of reducing this type of thing from happening is by doing the following;
1. Simple follow the LAWS they way they are written. Punctuation has legal meaning does it not? (any lawyer please answer that one)
2. Get rid of all perceived/actual taxes on the earnings of citizens,
3. Stop using inflationary money,
4. Make it so only one parent has to work to keep the family fed and housed.

I am sure there are more things but those would be the biggest starters.

amlevin · Nov 29, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
4. Make it so only one parent has to work to keep the family fed and housed.

That's already possible for those who aren't obsessed with all the "latest toys" and trying to keep up with the "Jones'".

With the exception of only the very poorest, most of those families where the "spouse" has to work is because they have chosen a lifestyle that's beyond the means of a single wage earner. Their choice.

Wow, for someone so against anything and everything "Government" this sure sounds like you want them to get more involved.

Freedom1Man · Nov 29, 2012

amlevin said:
That's already possible for those who aren't obsessed with all the "latest toys" and trying to keep up with the "Jones'".

With the exception of only the very poorest, most of those families where the "spouse" has to work is because they have chosen a lifestyle that's beyond the means of a single wage earner. Their choice.

Wow, for someone so against anything and everything "Government" this sure sounds like you want them to get more involved.

I am against government involvement.

It was the government involvement that created the mess we are in.

And other than the possibility of item 4. What makes you think that I want more government involvement?

The government caused inflation which has kinda forced some families to have two working parents.

EMNofSeattle · Nov 29, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
I am against government involvement.

It was the government involvement that created the mess we are in.

And other than the possibility of item 4. What makes you think that I want more government involvement?

The government caused inflation which has kinda forced some families to have two working parents.

I have a similar conclusion, but due to different reasoning.

I think with the federal reserve system in place banking became more profitable and with less worry about losing, since if a bank is illiquid it can always go borrow from the fed, they were more willing to extend loans then ever before. We saw an evolution from 1900 in which banks were used to borrow money for real expensive things such as houses or land to the modern day in which we go into debt to buy a hamburger at McDonald's.

I think the increase in people borrowing money to buy stuff has lead to inflation because when people buy more goods more rapidly the price goes up.

I don't believe in a direct connection between the government and inflation, I think it's fear of changing the system that keeps this problem going. we have no one alive today who remembers life without the fed, that alone is going to make congress very nervous about even auditing or amending it, let alone dissolving it.

just my personal hypothesis, I probably haven't done as much research as you have on the subject though.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 30, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
I have a similar conclusion, but due to different reasoning.

I think with the federal reserve system in place banking became more profitable and with less worry about losing, since if a bank is illiquid it can always go borrow from the fed, they were more willing to extend loans then ever before. We saw an evolution from 1900 in which banks were used to borrow money for real expensive things such as houses or land to the modern day in which we go into debt to buy a hamburger at McDonald's.

I think the increase in people borrowing money to buy stuff has lead to inflation because when people buy more goods more rapidly the price goes up.

I don't believe in a direct connection between the government and inflation, I think it's fear of changing the system that keeps this problem going. we have no one alive today who remembers life without the fed, that alone is going to make congress very nervous about even auditing or amending it, let alone dissolving it.

just my personal hypothesis, I probably haven't done as much research as you have on the subject though.

UM.......your personal hypothesis would not hold up to basic economics.

Borrowing money affects interest rates, the more people borrow the higher the rate, the more people save the lower, it's a basic supply and demand proven to be true over and over....but....

Government and the Fed printing money or making money out of thin air and the lack of our government money being based on anything of real value causes inflation, bubbles, and false economic environment.

Hazlit's Economics in One Lesson is an easy read, please read it, and encourage all politicians to read it.

amlevin · Dec 1, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
UM.......your personal hypothesis would not hold up to basic economics.

Borrowing money affects interest rates, the more people borrow the higher the rate, the more people save the lower, it's a basic supply and demand proven to be true over and over....but....

Government and the Fed printing money or making money out of thin air and the lack of our government money being based on anything of real value causes inflation, bubbles, and false economic environment.

Hazlit's Economics in One Lesson is an easy read, please read it, and encourage all politicians to read it.

So how do you explain the current situation? Interest rates are as low as they've been since the 50's, Banks are paying crap for interest on deposit accounts, and yet the Government is borrowing money like mad from China and others.

By all rights we should be seeing interest rates like we had during Jimmie Carter days.

Wonder when this "rubber band" is going to break?

sudden valley gunner · Dec 1, 2012

amlevin said:
So how do you explain the current situation? Interest rates are as low as they've been since the 50's, Banks are paying crap for interest on deposit accounts, and yet the Government is borrowing money like mad from China and others.

By all rights we should be seeing interest rates like we had during Jimmie Carter days.

Wonder when this "rubber band" is going to break?

This is going way off topic, but simple the government and the Fed are artificially holding the rates low......that was my point.

The rubber band will break and it won't be good. The 07/08 crash wasn't the real crash...

local reason to carry

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Anonymouse

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

amlevin

Regular Member

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

amlevin

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member