Where religion steps in
Activists launch 'Roe v. Wade for Men' - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com
I'm a fairly liberally-minded individual when it comes to religion and politics, but this issue is a true head-scratcher.
One one hand, men SHOULD have the same rights and choices as women in ...well, anything, according to how one could (and probably should) interpret the 14th Amendment. However, on the other hand, it's asinine for a man to not pay child support for their kid. It's akin to "you do the crime, you do the time:" you had sex with the woman and got her pregnant, so you have to support that kid. The only ways OUT of the man paying support for the kid is (a) the woman says, "it's OK, I got tons of money to help pay for the kid's upbringing (yeah, right, how often is that true)", (b) the woman gets an abortion or (c) the woman gives the child up for adoption.
This is where religion steps in. The one factor that immediately eliminates so many problems is if men and women do what ultra-conservative religious people have been claiming for...well, centuries: keep it in your pants. Lawsuits like this puts the concept of abstinence in a whole new light.
But people are still having sex, and will continue to do so.
So what to do? How can a man end up having equal say in the fate of a child as a woman has, without coming up with such ridiculous ideas as legalizing being a deadbeat dad? I'm a man (last time I checked), and if I were to get a woman pregnant (willingly or accidentally), it is my obligation to not only ensure the child is adequately supported, but given every opportunity to achieve its greatest potential in life. Period.
Long story short: this lawsuit is bullshit. The thinking behind it is right, but the apparent goal--releasing men from financial obligation for children--is just plain crap.
Side note: In the State of Maine, a man making around $40,000 a year only has to pay a single mother $336 a month for child support.
Holy
freaking
crap.
How can you even ADEQUATELY support a child on that kind of money, let alone allow it to thrive?? If that's all the state is going to allow, then they need to pump more money into things like child day care so the mother can work, etc. Give the mother some opportunities too, for crying out loud.
But hey, if you're a man who could give two shits about your own flesh and blood, this is a wonderful law. (barf)
Here's a breakdown of what a single mother, unemployed, can expect:
Expense Monthly Cost
Diapers ($17 x 5) $ 85
Food $ 150
Clothes $ 100
Medical $ 450
Shelter $ 600
Utilities (all of them) $ 200
TOTAL $1585
What the state pays for Montly amount
Food $ 130 (*)
Medical $ 430 (**)
Shelter $ 450 (***)
Enforced child support $ 336 (****)
TOTAL $1346
SHORTFALL $ 239
* What I have found, on average, having had to be on the government dole in the past
** If you have little or no income, the State of Maine pays for ALL expenses, minus copays
*** Community action programs (CAPs) and towns will help pay for housing, but subsidized housing plus CAP funding is limited
**** What I've had to pay for child support, based off of the state's guidelines
The only way the woman, if the man isn't paying more than the bare minimum, can make up for that shortfall is to get a job (which requires getting daycare at $85 a week OR MORE) or get more money from somewhere. If the mother cannot get subsidized housing (the waiting list can be anywhere from 3 months to 3 YEARS), this shortfall can run close to $1000.
Knowing the human psyche as I do, people do tend to take the path of least resistance. You keep feeding people free money (i.e. state money), they'll be less likely to find work on their own; and oftentimes (especially if they can't afford to work and pay for daycare) CAN'T find work on their own. They become institutionalized. That's why I see that the state needs to do the following things:
1. Raise the cap for monthly "required" child support from the other parent AT LEAST $200. $550 a month to help pay for a child is what the father can expect, anyway, even if the family is together. The additional expenses come from the family being apart (2 residences). The father should only be obligated to ensure the kid has shelter. Which leads to item #2:
2. Put more money into subsidized housing. A LOT more money.
3. Put more money into daycare for children of all ages, so that single moms are enabled to go find meaningful work.
4. Put more money into training programs so that single moms CAN find more meaningful work.
The funny thing is, if the state did all these things, eventually the mother would become more self-sufficient and the state would eventually have to spend LESS money on social welfare. The problem is, it would cost A TON more up-front. But anyone who owns a business knows that you HAVE to have up-front money before you can actually start making money. It's just that increasing social spending pegs a politician to be "bleeding-heart" and "tax-hungry," and that's political suicide.
Which, of course, leads back to my argument about 'right' versus 'correct.' You'll rarely ever (if at all) see a politician do the right thing. Sorry.
I'm a fairly liberally-minded individual when it comes to religion and politics, but this issue is a true head-scratcher.
One one hand, men SHOULD have the same rights and choices as women in ...well, anything, according to how one could (and probably should) interpret the 14th Amendment. However, on the other hand, it's asinine for a man to not pay child support for their kid. It's akin to "you do the crime, you do the time:" you had sex with the woman and got her pregnant, so you have to support that kid. The only ways OUT of the man paying support for the kid is (a) the woman says, "it's OK, I got tons of money to help pay for the kid's upbringing (yeah, right, how often is that true)", (b) the woman gets an abortion or (c) the woman gives the child up for adoption.
This is where religion steps in. The one factor that immediately eliminates so many problems is if men and women do what ultra-conservative religious people have been claiming for...well, centuries: keep it in your pants. Lawsuits like this puts the concept of abstinence in a whole new light.
But people are still having sex, and will continue to do so.
So what to do? How can a man end up having equal say in the fate of a child as a woman has, without coming up with such ridiculous ideas as legalizing being a deadbeat dad? I'm a man (last time I checked), and if I were to get a woman pregnant (willingly or accidentally), it is my obligation to not only ensure the child is adequately supported, but given every opportunity to achieve its greatest potential in life. Period.
Long story short: this lawsuit is bullshit. The thinking behind it is right, but the apparent goal--releasing men from financial obligation for children--is just plain crap.
Side note: In the State of Maine, a man making around $40,000 a year only has to pay a single mother $336 a month for child support.
Holy
freaking
crap.
How can you even ADEQUATELY support a child on that kind of money, let alone allow it to thrive?? If that's all the state is going to allow, then they need to pump more money into things like child day care so the mother can work, etc. Give the mother some opportunities too, for crying out loud.
But hey, if you're a man who could give two shits about your own flesh and blood, this is a wonderful law. (barf)
Here's a breakdown of what a single mother, unemployed, can expect:
Expense Monthly Cost
Diapers ($17 x 5) $ 85
Food $ 150
Clothes $ 100
Medical $ 450
Shelter $ 600
Utilities (all of them) $ 200
TOTAL $1585
What the state pays for Montly amount
Food $ 130 (*)
Medical $ 430 (**)
Shelter $ 450 (***)
Enforced child support $ 336 (****)
TOTAL $1346
SHORTFALL $ 239
* What I have found, on average, having had to be on the government dole in the past
** If you have little or no income, the State of Maine pays for ALL expenses, minus copays
*** Community action programs (CAPs) and towns will help pay for housing, but subsidized housing plus CAP funding is limited
**** What I've had to pay for child support, based off of the state's guidelines
The only way the woman, if the man isn't paying more than the bare minimum, can make up for that shortfall is to get a job (which requires getting daycare at $85 a week OR MORE) or get more money from somewhere. If the mother cannot get subsidized housing (the waiting list can be anywhere from 3 months to 3 YEARS), this shortfall can run close to $1000.
Knowing the human psyche as I do, people do tend to take the path of least resistance. You keep feeding people free money (i.e. state money), they'll be less likely to find work on their own; and oftentimes (especially if they can't afford to work and pay for daycare) CAN'T find work on their own. They become institutionalized. That's why I see that the state needs to do the following things:
1. Raise the cap for monthly "required" child support from the other parent AT LEAST $200. $550 a month to help pay for a child is what the father can expect, anyway, even if the family is together. The additional expenses come from the family being apart (2 residences). The father should only be obligated to ensure the kid has shelter. Which leads to item #2:
2. Put more money into subsidized housing. A LOT more money.
3. Put more money into daycare for children of all ages, so that single moms are enabled to go find meaningful work.
4. Put more money into training programs so that single moms CAN find more meaningful work.
The funny thing is, if the state did all these things, eventually the mother would become more self-sufficient and the state would eventually have to spend LESS money on social welfare. The problem is, it would cost A TON more up-front. But anyone who owns a business knows that you HAVE to have up-front money before you can actually start making money. It's just that increasing social spending pegs a politician to be "bleeding-heart" and "tax-hungry," and that's political suicide.
Which, of course, leads back to my argument about 'right' versus 'correct.' You'll rarely ever (if at all) see a politician do the right thing. Sorry.
posted by xanadian at 9:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home