. . . The parent who pays more than 50% of the full cost to support a child, so long as they can prove it, is entitled to claim the child, contrary to popular belief. It may involve a trip to court, but if the numbers are accurate, well family court should be sufficient to effect the change, and shouldn't require a lawyer, so go for it .

It is true that here is no accounting for a custodial parents use of CS monies, and personally, I don't have a problem with the institution of such. My experience tells me that those who complain that the custodial parent is squandering their money really have no idea of the expense attributable to caring for their children. Claims that their children are being "neglected" by the custodial parent, without following through by being willing to take on the job, seem baseless to me, and more about vengeance then about the care of their child. There are those who may abuse the CS system, no doubt, but in fact the numbers as figured seem to fairly represent the expense of raising a child, and for the most part cover only the necessities. Truth is, if every parent who claims that the other parent, with whom their children reside and who collects payments from them, really spent the money "having a good time", we'd have a lot more starving children. Just my two cents.

Bill: It wasn't necessarily Monica that he directly got in trouble for; it was for the perjury about it that really was offensive.

really? Then why was he asked about it in court in the first place? For shits and giggles?

Once Upon A Time.... There was this lovely lady waiting to be discovered.
She stood late one evening in front of this nightclub waiting on her girlfriend so she didn't go in alone. She watched behind her shaded glasses looking at each person as
they walked by and entered the club. Will this be a night wasted or will she find
that perfect someone that will make her evening out to be enjoyable?

According to SSA historians . . . [t]he first person to receive monthly benefits was Ida May Fuller from Vermont, who retired in November 1939 and started collecting benefits in January 1940 at age 65. In the three years that Fuller worked under the program, she contributed a total of $24.75. Her first benefit check was for $22.54 and she went on collecting benefits for 35 years, until 1975, when she died at age 100. In this time she collected a total of $22,888.92.

The Social Security system is nothing like that. In the Social Security system, the money you pay into the system gets immediately paid back out to the people who are currently getting Social Security checks. This arrangement came into being because of the way the system started. In 1935, when Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, there were a lot of people who needed benefits (because of the Great Depression), but there was no money to pay those benefits with. The idea at the time was that people currently working would pay into the system, and their money would immediately go back out in the form of benefit checks. Each generation of retiring workers would get paid by the people currently working, and therefore the system would fund itself forever despite the fact that the system had no money to start with.

This clever idea worked great in 1935 (and for many years after that), but it is going to have a problem in the future for two reasons:

In 1935, there were many more people paying into the system than those receiving benefits. The ratio of workers to retirees meant that workers did not have to pay much into the system in 1935 to support the retirees (this table shows that up through 1950, only 2% of income (1% employee, 1% employer) was withheld for Social Security, compared to 15.30% (7.65% employee, 7.65% employer) today). In the future, the retirement of millions of baby boomers will hurt the ratio -- there will be so many retired people that the working people will not be able to support them. If the population had grown steadily this would not have been a problem, but there is no good way for the design of the Social Security System to handle a population spike like the baby boomers.

Then he asks me if I enjoy kissing, hugging, and cuddling..

I tell him that I need to go take a bath.. and he says "oh , can I watch"..

Couple of days later we are IMing.. and he tells me he is gonna go take a shower I reply ok then he says "wanna take a shower with me"

He was a recently divorced in 2006, . . ..

Both his son and his step daughter are great.and we hit is off from the beginning.

Everything seemed to be going along splendidly until his ex- who is in constant contact with him (. . . cautioned him that)…maybe she and I were a little TOO similar (I guess based on age, body type, and being natural red-heads)…and that maybe he deserved more after “putting up with her all these years”.

Now at first I didn’t put much thought into her comments…but then I realized how much they were still “joined at the hip”. He often stays at her house on weekend when she goes out of town with her new boyfriends, to allow their son to stay in his familiar suroundings and to take care of her dogs. This was all fine till she recently broke up with her most recent “fiancees (which there have been several).

In early August, I had to return to my childhood home the DFW area to take care of some personal business (Dr,’s appointments, to move things from storage to were I live now). . . . He volunteered to help me move and accompany me so that I wouldn’t have to do this alone. After a couple of days, we returned to the San Antonio area with the plans of me staying with him for a week or two to check out the job market and test-drive our spending more intense time together to see how well we enjoyed each other’s company…in longer intervals…since he was wanting me to re-locate to San Antonio to start my own business and spend more intense quality time together.

Well, after the “ex” met me and she saw that he was going on with his life with out her (she was on her 2nd engagement since thy had split), she began to drop little “hints” of potential problems like “I don’t know, she and I seem so much a like (which I didn’t agree with) and I think maybe you deserve better…he started picking our relationship apart in his own mind…with out discussing or sharing his concerns with me.

By the 7th day we had spent together after we returned to SA, he had made up his mind our relationship was doomed because I was supposedly “too much like her” in some of our female characteristics (hair color, body type, etc). His previous wife had also been to re-hab for drugs and alcohol…four times within there marriage…all things he had convienintly left out while discussing their past relationships.

Now I wouldn’t have a problem with this normally, but him being the son of an alcoholic father, he didn’t really share his paranoia regarding having a few drinks here and there, while we were out socializing. Had I known she had been in re-hab 4 times throughout their marriage and how devastating it was to be the only “responsible one” in there relationship…I wouldn’t have drunk at all…even though I executed extreme self control as always, and certainly maintained my personal commitment to being the woman my Mom raised me to be responsible and in control.

To tie up the ends of this drama, he came home from work one day while I was still there and told me, although he loved me and had deep feelings for me, he wasn’t sure he “loved me enough” to look passed the many similarities between his ex- and me. And that while were out for dinner socializing, and having a few drinks here and there…red-flags and a certain amount on anxiety he experienced while we were together made him freak and “flash back to their life together…and he didn’t think he could hande it again…even though I hadn’t lost control and got drunk like she did. It seem to put him in a constant state of “waiting for the next shoe to drop” mentality…so he didn’t think he could handle or continue our “long Distance” relationship at the current rate of developing it into a Long-Term Relationship…because of their past.

Now you have to keep in mind, they’ve been divorced since 2006, but are still intimately ingrained in each other’s life on a daily basis. They do have a son together, but constantly talk on the phone about not the son but the many loves in her life. (She’s been engaged 3 times since they divorced. I had my doubts that they were truly “Done With Each Other For Good”…but who am I to say.

During our time together, after we had returned from the DFW area and back to his home for a little over a week, he came home one day from work and told me, although he loved me, he didn’t know if he loved me enough to look past all the “alarms or flags” that were going off in his head! This was really ironic, since in his off hours, he stayed pretty “buzzed” from his constant pot in-take which seemed a little two-faced and selective implementation of a “sober” mentality he seemed to be saying he absolutely needed from his significant other.

I drove home with a crushed and broken heart as well as a bruised sense of self confidence and tons of self doubt thinking I must be a defective personality…because he seemed so “OK” with his proclamations. Although he seemed loving and sensitive during the period just before I left and assured me we would continue to be the best of friends and that we would remain that way…he has all but totally removed himself from my life since last week.

Please some one, give me some insight whether they are men or women…what the hell gives! How could a man that claims his love for you one day so dedicatedly turn his back so abruptly the next and cut you out of his life so coldly the next. This is a forigen concept to me.

What the hell happened! Why did he treat me this way…and feel nothing as he broke my heart into a million pieces so easily? And why does it not bother him that it’s truly reduced me to a crying, miserable woman. I know I should stand myself up, dust myself off and say it’s his loss not mine…but right now I just feel broken hearted and less than the woman I was before this happened.

He’s still such a big part of his ex’es life on a daily basis. They talk probably 10 to 20 times a day. They still talk on the phone and see each other constantly, saying it’s because of their son. I’ve joked with him asking him if he’s sure he’s really “Divorced”. She has him constantly doing things around her home, fixing things, calling him over and for the most ridiculous things, like he’s still her personal house-slave, unless she has a new or current Boyfriend/Fiancee, until recently when they broke up.

So here’s my question:

Why do men choose to withdraw and abandon new healthier relationships at will, and how should I handle this. Should I walk a way now and try to maintain what’s left of my confidence, integrity, and any self love and appreciation for the woman he’s missing…me!? Or should I buckle down and fight for him…after all, he turned his back on me and didn’t even try to fight for me or love me through this potentially rough patch.

How do I handle it from here. He says he wants to remain close friends and that he still loves me…yet I don’t hear from him. And if I call him his cold and distant! Please someone give me an objective opinion. I have no doubt if someone was treating one of my good friends or family members this way…I’d tell them to cut him loose and not look back. Why can’t I give myself this same advice and stick to it!?

lostcauz, I have to question your numbers there, bud. Not sure how someone who paid $22 into SS ........that's like few hours pay, not even a quarter? .........would quality for a rate that would yield $24k over time.

And by the way, many if not most people pay into SSI all their working lives.......if and when they become disabled, I can assure you that they'd rather be abled and working than collecting the pittances from SSI.

i live in south Carolina. Karl rove. spread a rumor that mccain had a black child. but i no if anyone else does not. john mccain does not like bush. i just wonder how much money does it take to sell your soul.

(and now is a great time to go on, because the republicans are calling for this "end to all smears and personal/family attacks, so if they do the usual Barack Hussein Obama stuff, they'll look sad).

and to listen to fox, our republican women running for vp is the next coming of god.

1) The Director of Public Safety had to resign because he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law as a state trooper because he was in a custody fight with her sister. My question is... if she's willing to do this, what will she be willing to do when she becomes vice president... or God forbid, if something should happen to McCain and she becomes president?!

2) It is likely that Sarah Palin was pregnant before she got married... so shot gun weddings seem to be running in the family... My question is... is this the type of behavior i want to be teaching my children?

[edit] Article VIII: Natural Resources
Article VIII is the first article dealing solely and broadly with resources to appear in a state constitution. The delegates wished to curtail what was seen as abuse of Alaska's resources (citation omitted) and ensure reasonable development to broaden Alaska's economic base. The chief principle was that resources should be managed as a public trust, providing "for maximum use consistent with the public interest", further defined as "utilization, development, and conservation... for the maximum benefit of [the] people"; for common access to resources; and for development to be based on sustainable yield. Article VIII also provides for state parks and protected areas, and for the leasing of state lands for resource development.

Pro-LIFE = Anti-ANY DEATH (including killing through Wars, Euthanasia, and Abortion). It's about consistency in the ideology. The ideology is used to SERVE the people (the people don't serve the ideology). Therefore, when there is a conflict between the ideology and safety to the people, exceptions can be made in certain circumstances (e.g. rape, incest, & harm to the mother as justified reasons to allow abortion, homeland security/self-defense as a valid reason to go to war). Remember, these are EXCEPTIONS to the rule.

To be consistent in the pro-life philosophy, life has to have sanctity from conception to death. aka thou shalt not kill.

I am not here to battle at all. I am here to bring the message of love compassion forgiveness and nonviolence.

I wish to see the end of the ugly cycles of suffering and violence in this world and any man or woman who thinks that any war is a task from god really needs to learn about love, compassion, forgiveness and nonviolence. They have fallen for weakness instead.

It takes the greatest strength to instead of reacting to someone who wrongs you with violence to instead forgive and show them love, compassion, forgiveness and to remain nonviolent.

I will tell why many pro-lifers believe in love for the fetus and hatred for the child. They worship the fetus and when the child is born allow them to live in poverty only to send them off to be mangled and slaughtered in their wars they dream up or, choose to murder people via the death penalty. Pro-life should be anti war anti death penalty and truly pro-life and not just anti-choice. People who choose to use religion for their arguments like to pick and choose and use and abuse religion in their mouth foaming extremist ideals.

They quote the bible when it suits them and totally ignore Jesus's message of pacifism. They instead will skip over Jesus and try to quote something from the old testament and then try to claim they are Christians. The angry jealous ideal of god seems to have more appeal to them more than Jesus who called for forgiveness, turning the other cheek, love, compassion, and not passing judgment on their fellow man.

Who would Jesus bomb?

This is for the 4,000 us boys and girls that were slaughtered and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people slaughtered in the name of greed.

This is not a task from god but is the task of a lunatic maniacal blood thirsty man who wanted vengeance.

Your rant about martin luther king jr is typical nonsense. No man is perfect, so he might have liked to sleep with multiple women. Nothing new, all men would like this on some level I would think.

It is called biology we are mammals my friend not birds. Look up the percentage of monogamous mammals and after your education for the day get back to me.

Secondly his love for more than one woman does no harm to the righteousness that he embodied on the front of racism and nonviolence! He was a shinning example and your attempt to discredit him for his love for life and making love to more than one woman is appalling.

Typical social conservative nonsense and hypocrisy. This group of people claim to be perfect and fall short on every level. Next you will try to belittle Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Jesus, Buddha and Mohammad too. They all preached nonviolence and showed people the way to live it.

Though many invoke their names to start violence that is the tragedy!

I suppose you want to point out what you perceive as their failings even though all of these masters have brought more positive things to our existence than ANY or all of the so called social conservatives we have seen in our days.
Social conservative in what I have seen is a code word for fascist, extremist, and hypocrite.

Yikes...now this choice makes more sense.
McCain trying to get the religious right on his side!

Here's a clip of Palin speaking at her Church stating she believes the Iraq war is a task from God! This is June of 2008!

She also wants God to help build a pipeline.
Yes Mrs Palin, Jesus wants us to bomb and kill Iraqis and build oil pipelines.
What a freak!

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,..."

"That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,"

At first I thought Palin was a great pick, even though I personally thought she was coocoo for CoaCoa Puffs.

But now that her pregnant daughter is being talked about, and stuff like this is getting out, I'm not as sure. All the other possibles (on both sides) have had intense media scrutiny. She's now getting her first taste of it.

I hate to say this, but her past is going to be blogged all over. In our northern most town (Inuvik), they say that if you can't get laid, you're just lazy. These northern towns have more promiscuity than the average American is used to. I'm not saying it's definite, but the odds are than Mrs. Palin has some skeletons that will be coming out.

Pro-Life these days means you love the fetus and hate the child. True pro-life must be anti-war. To think any war is a task from God is NUTS!! To think any war is a task from god is blasphemy! The only war that is a task from God is the war against war and this one cannot be won with violence. It can only be won by compassion, love, and forgiveness.

Christians need to follow the examples of Jesus and Martin Luther King Jr. Who exemplified true Christianity. They laid their lives down on the side of righteousness without becoming violent. Jesus even forgave his own murderers! To go against this is to be the true anti-christ!

One more thing I forgot to add. Iraq war is only a task from god if you think George W Bush is god. He is the one who started this mess against the law. It is his war his task this just proves how much she worships him.

I agree. Furthermore, just see what happens if you are robbed and/or injured by some miscreant, and you try to sue the police for failing to protect you. You'll lose.

Good point. The villain in this story used a knife AND a vehicle to attack others, causing serious bodily harm and death. Note that his use of the knife was also charged as an offense by itself:

And by that logic, if everyone has a gun then no-one will use cars to attack others.

This whole "if they don't have guns they will just use cars/knives/staple removers" is so patently moronic.

It's no different from saying "why make murder illegal, if someone is determined enough they will just kill you by making you commit suicide".

Really... instead of the mindless slogans designed to appeal to a 4th grade intellect, how about actually using some rational, adult reasoning (I know it's really hard but do try).

Or is that expecting too much?

Fort Worth's homicide rate ?

The last numbers I found were for 2006 .........51 . The death penalty, CCW laws all over the state allowing handguns almost anywere including inside airports (up to the secure areas of them, at least), and a self defense law that allows you to shoot someone that isn't even a threat to your life - like someone robbing your house.

Still more murders, and more crime. If CCW laws actually reduced crime, then this would not be true.

Stoves have safety interlocks. Drivers must get trained and licensed. Public safety officers can quarantine virulent disease carriers if necessary. We provide public education for virtually everyone for 12 years in the hope that they all will grow up to be informed voters and responsible citizens.

How is any of that inconsistent with the idea that a well-regulated militia requires that the citizen soldiers be _trained?_

No one "needs" to carry a gun. Why would you want to?

I find it amazing that everywhere else in the country the housing values are dropping except in your world. According to The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27econ.html?bl&ex=1219982400&en=149edf05b53c24f2&ei=5087%0A) home values are dropping all over the US. New home sales are down also, but you want me to believe that all the homes you own have increased in value? How is that possible?

I didn't say it was worth less than it was when I bought it, and for the record I bought it 5 years ago. Overall it's still worth more today than when I bought it, close to twice the original purchase price... What I said was that it appraised this year for 15% less than it did last year.

Taxes are necessary for goverment to run properly. . . We are the government!

Second, proper use of taxes stimulate the economy far greater than the money lost. . . It is called an economic multiplier.

Third, there seems to be a misconception that wealthy people are struggling, it isn't the wealty that are struggling, it is the other four quintiles below them.

Fourth, our economy works from the bottom up, not the top down. Proof is simple, every time there is an increase in minimum wage, the economy improves, and unemployment drops (EVERY TIME!!!) Also, when the Stimulus checks arrived, it caused an increase in the economy of .5% in one month, that is a 6% annual growth rate, twice Bill Clinton's! Liberal tax policies stimulate the economy causing EVERYONE to improve. You have been lied to by the right wing.

FInally, our tax rate is NO WHERE NEAR the highest. We pay the most for healthcare, but rank in the 40s, we pay approximately 40th in taxes, but we receive the least in return. Other countries get healthcare, we get an occupation of Iraq.

It isn't how much we are taxed, it is that our money is squandered on war instead of infrastructure. Our bridges collapse and our leveys break, but we can occupy a country that didn't attack us.

1. the major tax cuts have gone to the rich and middle class (halved)
2. the income tax cuts for the middle class and poor have been offset by increases in regressive payroll, excise, state taxes.
3. because average incomes have been flat for 30 years and wages have not the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, the buying power of the middle class has been diminished, and only kept strong by the middle class leveraging themselves to the hilt.

IMHO, based upon what I've been able to learn, this foreclosure crisis was brought on by a LOT of loudmouth cry babies spewing about how they were being discriminated against, because banks would not give them a mortgage. The reasons varied, but, there were as many classes being discriminated against, as there are people.

So, banks loosened up their lending standards, so more people could buy homes.

thats pretty funny. even the banks don't have the balls to say that with a straight face.

To say that I said 'that "guns" make people "go bad" is ludicrous...'. Way back when I posted that I used to shoot, I had handguns, but got rid of them because I developed wrist problems (I shot a lot). So I do not have a bias against guns nor do I think they are evil.

I just do not think the average person is well enough trained enough to carry one out in public, whether they took a course or not. Some people I used to shoot with have their carry permit for the US so I know about the training needed to get a permit.

Now Americans and Canadians are really not all that different. We eat the same things, listen to the same music, our beer is better (sorry), but you people seem to kill each other much more than we do. Why is that? And is there any way to change that?

I am just guessing at what the cause may be. I am willing to hear others opinions on why things are like they are and what may need to change so people can walk the streets in safety. But what I hear is ‘It is my God given right to blow away scum’ which brings the other side to respond with ‘Who gave you the right to decide who lives and who dies.

I would like to feel as safe in the States as I do in Canada. Somehow I do not feel a bunch of people packing will change much. If that were the answer Mexico would probably be paradise.

Always bear in mind:

*It's possible for the federal government to slow the economy down, just by giving tax cuts to rich people, who invest the money into companies who use it to buy up smaller companies, which eliminates jobs and competition, thus concentrating the ownership of companies into the hands of less and less owners.

*When big companies buy up small companies, they can raise prices as high as they want, because nobody else is in the market to compete with them. They can afford to wait until you HAVE to buy a car, a shirt, a tv, an appliance; because they're the only ones you can buy it from, and eventually you'll have to pay their prices for it. Of course, we don't have monopolies, but if there are only 3 or 4 suppliers in the market, do they really have to call each other to figure how to fix their prices?

In my humble opinion, McCain has done nothing but offer more of the same as his party's current President. He may have been considered a 'maverick' at one time, but in the last two years, he has voted with the President and his party 95-100% of the time.

So basically, he is a guarantee of 4 more years of Bush & Republican policies that have devastated our country. That's the real issue.

Think about it: unemployment is rising. The rate stands at 5.7% and we have lost 463,000 jobs since the first of the year.

And so is inflation. It’s accelerating at a faster rate than it has in 17 years. Gas prices are up 34% in the last year. Oil was around $26 a barrel when President Bush was inaugurated… it touched $147 a few weeks ago.

More than 1 million homes are now in foreclosure.

Here are some national comparisons between today and where things were 8 years ago: Americans’ wages have actually gone down since the last recession ended. And we are spending 14.1% of our disposable income on debt; that’s higher than it was in 2001.

Also, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll finds 75% of those surveyed think the economy is in bad shape; that’s compared to just 43% who felt that way a year ago.

Here’s my question to you: With the election 71 days away, are you better off now than you were eight years ago?

I'm definitely not better off than I was four years ago. My purchasing power and the value of my house have gone down. Everything's become more expensive and the cost of gasoline has gone through the roof.

I am better off, but my case is the exception to the rule, I overcame two foreclosures and saved my house by the skin of my teeth. . . Despite the divorce.

I know many of my fellow Americans didn't fare as well as I did, but I didn't even date for over a year to save enough to save my home.

McSame doesn't know how many houses he has, how appropriate, since many Americans can't answer that question either, because they don't know if they are going to save their only home. . .

I'm more or less the same as I was 4 years ago, but I live a very non-traditional lifestyle.

I'm against debt. I don't do it. I didn't even do it when I had no money. Bought a rehab house for a dollar, drove junkers, got good jobs, started businesses. Bought better houses, and cars, all paid for. It's amazing how much more money you have when you just REFUSE to go into debt.

Don't say it's not possible, because it is.

If you don't pay all that interest, you'd be surprised how much more money you will have. It also "recession proofs" you.

4 years ago I was employed at a good job surrounded by greedy republicans. They were pretty much like McCain, in high positions but couldn't use computers.

I discovered technology that would have cut the company's telecom expenses by 80%. It would have eliminated the need for paying for jobs that were obsolete and it would have cut insurance rates over 60%.

However, these people that surrounded me were receiving huge kickbacks from vendors and so they decided to launch a smear campaign against me and moved to have me fired. They found that it would take 4 engineers and 2 analysis's to replace me and they expected me to train my replacements. Every replacement I was training quit when they saw the environment they would have to work in and realized they did not have to qualifications to do the jobs I was doing.

When they finally canned me, they expected me to sign an agreement stating I would not disclose any of the corruption I uncovered with a 3 months severance package.

My lawyer, negotiated a very large sum for me not to make the knowledge public and I still got to make a report to the regulatory authorities.

So even though I don't make as much money now, I don't have to work among a bunch of crooks, I was able to cash in my 401K without penaty and so I didn't loose that investment and have started a business to help rout out corruption.

When the democrats are in control, I'll be glad to help them rout out as much corruption as possible.