Poll: Should deadbeat dads be denied the right to vote?

[slackmaster]

Whereas I have often heard conservatives calling for a curtailment of voting rights for people who receive public assistance (e.g. welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, Medicare), I thought it would be interesting to turn the tables a bit and put the blame where it often belongs: On the shoulders of able-bodied men who sire children then abandon them and their mothers.

What say you DUers? Would it be constitutional, would it be right, would it be fair to say that if a man who is capable of financially supporting his offspring doesn't, and the taxpayers have to cover for him, to curtail his right to vote?

[slide to the left]

1. In Texas

They can't get a hunting licence. I think not paying child support should be a felony and then they couldn't vote.

[dsc]

2. Only if parents who defy visitation orders are treated in the same manner

[supernova]

3. The franchise is a human right

I can't see, morally, when it would ever be justified to use it as a political football.

[Mandate My Ass]

12. Took the words right outta my mouth

While I think deadbeat dads are lower than snakes' bellies, taking away their right to vote is not the correct method of handling the problem. There is always some subset of human beings that others find morally repugnant, but as you said, moral posturing and politics don't mix well.

[Tikki]

4. Of course, you mean 'dead-beat' PARENTS....

.....oh, and by the way, she doesn't vote anyway...


Tikki

[Clark2008]

13. Is that your little boy in your avatar?

He looks a lot like my son at that age. Cute kid, whoever he is.

My son is half Arabic: my ex-husband is a dead-beat Dad, owing about $4,500 in back child support. He can't vote, anyway, because he's not a citizen.

However, I did vote "yes," in the poll because in my state, at least, failure to pay child support results in contempt charges, which are a crime. If they made the crime a felony, then those convicted of the felony failure to pay child support would be subjected to the legal definition of "infamous," which results in the suspension of voting rights unless otherwise re-instated.

[Tikki]

48. Hi, that is my grandson......and thank you, he is adorable...

And his mother is the 'dead beat'. I have no problem with someone being called 'dead beat'
but, in this day and age the mothers who do not support their children emotionally and financially
should ,also, be recognized as the failures they are.
I am not bitter, I don't have time to be bitter.
I am in all ways a 'mother' again at age sixty, helping my single son raise this precious little boy.


Tikki
ps...grandpa is here to help, too. :thumbsup:

[diamondsndust]

65. Praises and flowers for you!

I've been a single father for almost 10 years, and I could never do it without the help from my parents either. They have been a great help over the years, watching the kids while I worked and all. I used to work out of town a lot, sometimes gone for 2 weeks at a time, and I never had to worry about who was taking care of my kids. It's especially helpful for my daughter, who is almost 14, to have a mother figure to talk to. Both kids call their grandmother "mom", as they never really knew their mother.

I hope your son tells you often just how much he appreciates you and what y'all and your help means to him.

And no, I haven't seen a dime of support in 10 years either, so to answer the poll, change it to "deadbeat parents and I can vote on it.

BTW, I even threatened to sue the child support enforcement office because every piece of literature, every poster in their office, only was against deadbeat fathers, with no mention of deadbeat mothers. I'm sick and tired of men getting all the bad rap in the world.

[Yupster]

32. It seems this is one of the few groups

who you can call by an insult and no one seems to mind.

I don't like the term deadbeat dads or parents or whatever. How about we treat people as individuals instead of insulting them s a group?

[Tom Joad]

5. No one should be denied the right to vote. What a crazy idea.

[badgerpup]

6. Seeing as how at least one of our Senators fall into this category

I can't see it ever passing...

[electron_blue]

8. convicted felons already lose their "right" to vote in many states.

Or maybe you didn't know that?

Legally, voting is a privilege not a right. Didn't we just have this discussion last week?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. That is incorrect. Legally voting is a RIGHT not a privilege

but the constitution protects the rights of those "qualified" to vote, not everyone (see Alexander v Mineta 2000)

Since states can determine WHO is qualified, this scenario COULD happen in some states wherein deadbeat parents lose their right to vote, however, I favor no limitations including permanently disenfranchising convicted felons who have paid their duty to society.

[TahitiNut]

18. Not a 'privilege' but an entitlement that reflects ...

... a human right of self-determination. I regard it as one of the more fundamental of human rights - the one upon which the Declaration of Independence itself is founded. Elections and voting are the mechanism by which the exercise of that human right can be balanced, exercised without infringing on the coequal rights of others to also self-determine. (Some believe that anarchy is a preferable system of self-determination.)

The disenfranchisement of ex-felons in some states, in my view, is an illicit infringement. It's a reflection of corporatism/fascism that creates a non-voting source of human labor/service. I don't believe it's at all accidental that the same states that disenfranchise ex-felons are those that've historically abused the prison system in creating a source of cheap labor for the enrichment of a very few 'connected' exploiters.

[Tom Joad]

40. I do know that. Democracy. It's a good idea. And a right.

Taking voting rights from people is a shameful thing to do.
Kathrine harris thinks it is the right thing to do. So i know there are disagreements.

[havocmom]

7. No, but any tax refunds should be applied to child support payments

Then we will see about any sports cars. There have been reports of some deadbeat dads who make a lot of money and live pretty large. Those guys need to pay up.

edited cux I can't think and type at the same time

[slackmaster]

27. That is already done in many states

I think it should be done on a federal level too.

[havocmom]

29. Yep

Some dads are financially hurting. Some have legitimate grievances with regard to visits with kids and how the ex spends THEIR money.

Some are rat bastards who just care about themselves and mean to play. Nail them.

[Yupster]

35. My suggestion is that

a parent should not pay child support to another parent.

Instead each parent should pay into a state fund, and the money should be distributed equally to each worthy child.

I think it's crazy that one child should get $ 80 a month and another $ 10,000 a month just because one kid got lucky that his mom bedded a rich one.

Each child is equally worthy and should get equal.

That's my two cents on child support payments.

[slackmaster]

47. South Carolina does precisely that

It's a pretty good system.

[politicat]

Don't you mean the child's money?

Or are you advocating that the child should get her own apartment, private chef, driver, and permission slip signer? Because obviously mothers are not necessary when it's all about the money.... :sarcasm:

The money my father was supposed to give my mother to keep a roof over my head and food in my mouth and the heat on was money I never saw and never should have seen. And yes, it also paid for my mother's shelter, because I needed a parent. People who bitch about their exes spending the child support on rent and car payments are, IMNSHO, selfish, greedy bastards who are looking for any excuse not to pay at all. They're more than welcome to go back to court and try to get their payments reduced, but that just shows their contempt for their child.

(And yes, I've seen mothers do this, too, but it's usually the fathers, and it's usually fathers who want to spend the money on new toys rather than their responsibilities.)

And no, I don't believe anyone should lose civil rights for any reason; I also believe that legal immigrants should be allowed to vote in local elections upon completion of X% of their citizenship work. After all, they live in the community, too, and decisions made by the community affect them.

[IsIt1984Yet]

77. Beautiful post.

:applause:

[havocmom]

79. Not intending to get personal so cool off

But I have seen many moms who are not concerned with doing for the kids. Sadly, just as there are self serving fathers who do not take care of the kids' needs, there are mothers guilty of the same. THAT was the point I made that there are men with legitimate complaints about what the ex does with the check.

I know well what a mother has to stretch the money to cover. Rather nasty to take my qualifiers as a suggestion the kids should get their own place! REALLY, re-read my remarks without internalizing them and applying to your own life!

Some kids grow up alone while Dad AND Mom are off 'having a life' and forgetting to do for the kids.

I was a kid with a mom who worked hard to keep us fed when checks were unreliable. And I have worked with kids whose moms took the money and ran. I have seen lots of sides to this one, which is why I qualified my remarks.

Sorry about your experiences. They are all too familiar to me and others. But they are NOT universal. Some men do care and send the checks. They have a right to protest when the cash goes up the ex's nose. It happens.

[politicat]

85. It is kind of personal for me, but it's also professional.

I have worked in mental health for almost a decade now, and I have seen exactly 1 mother who couldn't manage to keep it together (and yes, drugs were a factor. She was self-medicating because she couldn't get what she needed from the health care industry.) But I can't count the number of fathers who walked out and never came back, called a week before a birthday and never showed up as promised....

I'm not saying women are saints, but when you compare the numbers who try to be there for their kids after a split to the number of fathers who neglect their children, disappear or continually fight to be uninvolved (or controlling of their exes)... the numbers just don't compare.

And in reference to drugs, most women who start using meth do so because they need more hours in the day and meth, at least initially, is great for that. Meth helps women who feel inadequate complete those tasks that they feel guilty for leaving undone (i.e. cleaning, sewing the Halloween costume by hand, baking a gross of cupcakes for school...) at least in the beginning. And 95% of the time, when they are putting "something up their nose" i'ts because they're overwhelmed with childcare and work because they are without partners. Trace the pattern, HM...

[havocmom]

91. I didn't compare numbers I said there were some; a qualifer

acknowledging that SOME men get a raw dea. And when I said up a nose, I meant coke

Jumping to all those conclusions must be exhusting. Jerking knees tent to distract from credibility.

[Clark2008]

9. If they're convicted of the crime of failure to pay child support -

and it is a crime in some states - then it's not unConstitutional to take away their right to vote as it relates to committing a crime.

Simple as that.

[slackmaster]

33. Good point, but I believe the crime has to be defined as a felony

I would approve of making failure to pay child support a felony, as long as the conditions that define ability to pay and so on are defined clearly enough.

[electron_blue]

10. I vote no, I doubt this would help the problem. Better to

garnish their wages, grab their tax refunds (if any), and ultimately convict them and put them in jail til they pay. Voting? I don't see this as a motivator or frankly helpful to solve the problem of most deadbeat parents.

[slackmaster]

36. Some deadbeats get pretty good at avoiding garnishments

They work under the table, move around a lot, flee their state, etc.

Voting? I don't see this as a motivator or frankly helpful to solve the problem of most deadbeat parents.

I'm looking at it from an economic perspective - We don't allow members of Congress to vote themselves pay raises that are effective during the current term. Why allow people who are a drain on public funds have the power to influence how public funds are allocated?

[electron_blue]

55. Yes, I see that point you're making. I just don't see it being effective

If they are really fleeing the state and hiding, I say let them register to vote and actually vote. They'll have to cough up an address to do that and maybe we'll catch them that way.

[conflictgirl]

67. Yes, that's been happening for years to a friend of mine

Her ex-husband is so desperate to avoid paying child care that he either works under the table or quits "regular" jobs as soon as they start garnishing his wages.

[Warpy]

11. Grrr! I think they need to be DEBALLED

to keep them from producing more kids they'll abandon.

Monthly steroids to allow them a normal sex life could be linked to writing that check to support the kids.

They just won't be able to make any more of them.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gaspee]

30. cause we all know it's always

That damn bitch's fault. No men are dead beat dads. Men don't walk out on the kids they produce, leaving them to be raised by those stupid cunts. Hell no! It's the fucking harpies! If they weren't such disgusting bitches, then they wouldn't have been dumped in the first place. From time immemorial, men have been held down by deceitful, conniving bitches. It's no wonder some guys have to smack 'em around! Now if only men were in charge, then those harpies wouldn't get away with it. Back in the day when divorcing men always got the property (children,) well, those were the days cause then the bitch had to just shut up and take it, or find hersefl out in the streets, penniless, childless and liable to be put in the workhouse.

Now if those damned harpies would just do what they were supposed to, this wouldn't be a problem.


























I sincerely hope I don't need a sarcasm icon. Sigh. but I probably do.

[reichstag911]

43. Uh,...

...did you even read Warpy's post before you posted your ironic "woe is women's lot" crap? She states men should be "DEBALLED" if they don't cough up child support to women. Presumably, those men are absolutely at fault for every bad thing that's ever befallen the women involved.

You want equality? Why are women presumed superior parents when it comes to custody battles? Why must men pay for limited visitation rights? Maybe if we just had women like, oh, I don't know, Margaret Thatcher, or Lynne Cheney, or Babs "Mommieeeeeeeeeeee" Bush, or Pickles herself, in charge, the world would be so much better.

[gaspee]

53. I read it

And I agree with her. I would go for chemical castration, or a vasectomy until they could prove they weren't going to father and abandon more kids. Oh, all right, damn! You caught me using hyperbole.

I don't have kids, I don't want kids. I don't believe women are superior parents. I think joint custody is always the best resolution if doable. I wish so many men wouldn't walk out on the kids they've fathered. And like it or not, men are, statistically more likely to walk out on their responsibilities. Now, for all those, oh the poor widdle mens! people. Not all deadbeat parents are men. (only about 80% or so.) Not all men are irresponsible little boys. I don't know why I have to have that disclaimer. It's like when talking about rape, and we as women, have to be sure to include the statistically irrelevant women rapists. So yes, some women do walk out on their kids. if they don't support them, it's norplant for them! Equality to be irresponsible assholes! Whooo-heeeeeee!

[JVS]

61. Ok this is the second thread today where castration is endorsed.

I knew GD had become crazy, but this is beyond the pale

[madmusic]

64. Exactly!

And stick their puny penises in the mouths. And behead and mutilate them.

As long as we don't rape them, it's all good.

Wait, could sticking their penises in their mouths be considered rape?

[sweetheart]

14. what part of "universal sufferage"...

are people not grasping?

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.


http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[Clark2008]

15. I'm grasping it and saying that it doesn't apply if the deadbeat

parent is charged with a felony crime.

[sweetheart]

28. felony my ass

Being a deadbeat dad is as old as civilization, for all the new criminality of being poor.
Its just another war on the poor, trying to screw people who are screwed, makin' 'em pay.

A rape, a robbery, that's a felony, a kiddnapping yes. But being an absentee parent is not
a crime, not a felony, no matter what sick society can dream up.

[slackmaster]

34. Maybe being a deadbeat parent should be a felony

I think the idea is worth discussing.

[JVS]

59. Why not just spend the money that would go to trials and incarceration...

on making the payments for them. It would be a lot cheaper.

[sweetheart]

76. Maybe killing iraqi's should be a felony

Maybe killing people should be a felony.

Maybe sperm donors who don't pay 18 years of income should be cut some slack.

[fishwax]

80. charged? (or convicted?)

[TreasonousBastard]

19. Could be the same part that...

required Constitutional amendments so ex-slaves and women could vote.

[sweetheart]

26. Felon lists, blackwell, Diabold, Harris, and on...

and no matter the constitutional changes, the right is still abrogated, and
the bellweather is universal sufferage, not denying voting rights to felons,
poor people, black people and dead beat dads.

The constitutional changes are but ink not yet dry when subverted by corporate
interests for their global freedom to vote.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. Which is pretty much what I said in...

my other post in this thread.

The thing is, though, that back in Philadelphia a couple of hunbdred years ago voting was only intended for white, male landowners and the idea of universal suffrage, while a good one, is one that took a while to evolve.

And there are those who would be perfectly happy to turn back the clock.

[Avalux]

17. Unconstitutional to keep them from voting.

Sorry - I feel very strongly about this; everyone should be given the opportunity to vote.

[noonwitch]

20. No, but take their driver's licenses and their cars

And if they continue not to pay, make them spend their weekends (or non-work days) in jail until they are paid up. Or make them clean up the highways with the drunk drivers and other misdemeanor people who are performing community service.

I don't like to see anyone's right to vote taken away, unless a felony is involved. Even then, I think once the person does his time, he should be allowed to vote again.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

22. and force them to lose their jobs? It just makes it worse.

[noonwitch]

50. They can keep their bicycles and bus passes

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Drunk drivers with suspended licenses seem to make it to work, even if it's because their spouse drives them. They can carpool until they've paid up their child support.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. Other and here's why

Take a divorce case, a nasty, drawn out, bloody battle with no kids.
Take a twin of the wife who seduces the husband.
Take the condom which is used to impregnate the wife.
Take a judge who properly orders a delay in the divorce, based on the newly disclosed pregnancy
Take a blood test which confirms the hubby's now a daddy.

This really happened, so, I am sure that there are even crazier events.

[Yupster]

37. I just think of two 17 year olds rolling around

one night after a party where neither one knew the other's last name, and I wonder why the young man should be encumbered by child support payments.

I don't hink he should be. There was no commitment there aside from recreational sex.

[SheilaT]

39. And her commitment was?

You are no doubt making a cogent argument for morning after (Plan B) pills and ready access to abortion.

I have two sons, and I've been telling them since they were about 8 years old that it doesn't matter if they were planning on having a kid, but if a woman (regardless of age) they have sex with gets pregnant, it's her choice about going through with the pregnancy. And it may not be fair, but they may wind up responsible for the next 18 years for a kid they never wanted.

Don't have unprotected sex. Don't have casual, recreational sex unless you understand the possible consequences.

And I don't have a very high opinion for the young ladies, either, but it absolutely cuts both ways. I do roll my eyes at the sanctimonious "I'd never have an abortion" crap, but once the pregnancy proceeds to term, there's a kid, a real live human being and both parents are responsible.

[Yupster]

45. Absolutely - Of course

By deciding not to have an abortion and not to take a morning after pill, she demonstrated her commitment to becoming a mom.

God bless her if that's her choice, but the young man demonstrated no such commitment.

[SheilaT]

51. Then he should keep his pants on in the first place.

There are also situations where a man really wants the woman to have the baby, and there have been several widely publicized cases where he's gone to court to keep her from getting an abortion. I believe that in all those cases the woman eventually had one.

The real problem is the entire judgmental thing on either side: what I've expressed about he needs to take responsibility, yours about he has not participated in the decision. We are really both right, and they are irreconcilable differences. And if there were truly good support of women, babies, and parents in general, a lot of this wouldn't be such a hugely contentious issue. I suspect that in countries where women are given much societal support for child-bearing, this sort of thing does not come up as often.

[Yupster]

52. My proposal to reconcile

what you call irreconcilable differences is ...

And first let me digress to say that the argument of "he should have kept it in his pants," is just plain sexism unless you're also willing to say that to the young woman involved, which I guess would be the pro-lifer argument.

Anyway, to my proposal.

And this is for uncommitted relationships only. To me there's an implied consent to parenthood with a marriage certificate.

Anyway, to my proposal.

Upon learning she's pregnant, a woman has a reasonable amount of time to contact the man involved or men who might be involved.

At that point the man has a specific amount of time to sign a governmment form either agreeing to parenthood with all its rights and responsibilities, or declining parenthood and those same rights and responsibilities.

The woman is given a copy of that form and armed with the info of whether the man commits to be the parent or not, she then makes her decision, and her decision alone on whether to birth the baby or not.

The advantages of my plan are that

* no woman is forced into parenthood without her consent.
* no man is forced into parenthood without his consent.
* the woman alone decides whether she carries a pregnancy

As far as the baby, he/she should be well supported, regardless of the adult decisions. If the man says no and the woman births the baby anyway even if she has no means to support the baby, the baby should be well-supported by state or federal funds as a hungry baby is the concern of all of us.

[TreasonousBastard]

23. It's not unconstitutional, but it's a dumb idea...

and how many deadbeat parents actually vote anyway?

Even though not that many people seem to take voting all that seriously, it's still one of the foundations of our govenment, and taking away that right should never be taken lightly or done for simply criminal or anti-social conduct.

[reichstag911]

25. Only if Republican. ;)

If you think about it, given their more limited economic opportunities and resources, this is probably a Republican tactic to target minorities' voting rights. Think about it. :eyes:

[elmerdem]

38. stereo-typical argument which is wrong

I hate the word deadbeat dad! All this anger toward dads is bullshit.

Has anyone done any research on the judicial bias for women in custody cases? It is repulsive. I have been in this system for 8 years. The mother of my daughter walked out on us when my daughter was 1 month old. She left for an old boyfriend. So I woke up at 2, 4 & 6a.m. for feedings. I changed diapers (cloth at that). I spoiled my little sweetness. While doing this I made a 4.0 in my masters. She signed away sole custody willingly. I didn't even get a lawyer. Fast forward 2 yrs. She wants to spend more time with our daughter. She never paid a penny of the $100 of child support & I never made a fuss about it. She kept our daughter 1 weekend a month. Well we went back to court & guess what. The judge ordered true joint custody, 4days/3days, 3days/4days. Since she was unemployed, I am now paying child support because I make more money. On top of that I consistently keep my daughter on her mom's nights. I also pay all medical, school & extra-curricular expenses.

Don't blame it all on the dad's. It is completely easy to comprehend that dad's that don't have custody are paying absorbent child support which the mother's use for cars, diamonds & every frigging thing else. This system is stacked against men & it is bull shit. My ex-wife uses my support so that she doesn't have to work. For women it is all about the money. Men have no rights when it comes to fair custody decisions & now you would like to take away their right to vote?

Here is a great thesis on the subject of institutionalized custody bias.

www.law.fsu.edu/journals.lawreview/issues/254/mcneely.html

unfortunately this link is no longer working.

[Joe Fields]

41. WTF does being a deadbeat have to do with exercising your

constitutional right to vote?

Or being a felon?

So, are you saying that we should now have degrees of citizenship, contingent on how we conduct our lives?

Doesn't this smack of puritanism?

[Ilsa]

42. Oh that would be great. There are plenty of freepers who don't pay

their child support and would get kicked out of voting for their scumbag mysogynists.

But no, they should be allowed to vote like everyone else.

[watercolors]

44. Who thinks they would bother voting?

They don't care about thier children , they hide from the law, and warrants. Our ex s0n-in-law owes ocer 24.000 and we can't even get his ass in jail,DCF is worthless as far as going after them. He lives in the same city as his children, but because we can't get an address you can't get a warrant. He moves around constantly. He is a worthless piece of crap!

[SoCalDem]

46. Unless it's a felony, and they are convicted

they are "free to move about the cabin"..

It's all a bit odd when you think about it..

If a non-custodial parent is ordered by court to pay child support, and they DON'T, the state/county/whoever steps in and pays aid to the custodial parent, but the person who is shirking...and will be jailed and or made to reimburse, if caught.. Likewise, if the custodial parent ever comes into some money, they will be made to repay the money...so it all is technically "owed money"..

If someone steals money, there is a threshold that , if they cross it, the dollar amount makes the crime a felony.. It would seem to me that a few missed payments would certainly cross that line and make it a felony..

example:
lift a can of soup & a candy bar from 7-11...misdemeanor
empty the register and make off with $800.....felony

Of course they would still have to be convicted to achieve full felon status..

[ulysses]

49. no, but we could create a database showing where they live.

:evilgrin:

[ComerPerro]

54. I despise the term "deadbeat dads"

[slackmaster]

56. Would "irresponsible sperm donors" be more suitable?

Or is it the impugning of one gender over another that bothers you?

[ComerPerro]

63. Not all "deadbeat dads" are deadbeats

Lets see, your wife leaves you, she takes the kids, the house, the car.

So now you gotta give her half your income every month, get a car, and find someplace to live.

Some of these "deadbeats" simply can't pay.

[slackmaster]

70. The former wife you describe will not be on welfare

Which was actually my point - If conservatives think welfare moms shouldn't be able to vote, why not curtail voting rights of the men who abandoned them?

You haven't described a deadbeat dad. You have described a man who got screwed in a divorce.

I do understand the difference.

[ComerPerro]

71. but if he can't pay, he's a deadbeat

[slackmaster]

75. He's not the Droid you are looking for

He's paying to the best of his ability.

[etherealtruth]

78. ...and, if she can't support the child(ren)

...by herself, she is welfare scum:sarcasm:

edit:corrected punctuation

[Gormy Cuss]

88. Actually, a fair number of deadbeat parents fit that bill

The unfortunate truth is that many 'deadbeat dads' are high school dropouts with limited earning potential or are incarcerated.

For the working stiffs, the sad reality is that many couples can't afford to get divorced but do so anyway.At least these days there are mandatory support levels ( and yes, that means that some noncustodial parents can't afford to live on their own because they need to pay for their kids first, but that's the reality.)

[Yupster]

72. It does seem like we should have an equally nasty name

for a woman who births a baby knowing full well she has no means of supporting him/her.

Or maybe we shouldn't have nasty names for either.

[etherealtruth]

83. Oooooh, I think society already has

I thought that was what Reagans (fantasy) "welfare queens" were.

[Rosemary2205]

57. We need to "revisit" the meaning of fatherhood

I know a few "irresponsible sperm donors". No doubt this is a significant problem. But I also know as many men who married, had kids, intended to stay married, and for whatever reason wifey decides she's had enough - hires a lawyer - takes the house the savings the kids the car and the dog and demands 50% of his income to boot. In return he is allowed to see his children 4 days a month. However, exwifey badmouths him so mercilessly the other 26 days a month that when his weekend comes along the kids eventually don't want to go. God forbid the guys car breaks down and it takes him an extra 2 days to come up with his full child support payment.

Working in HR, I get the wonderful opportunity to process court ordered garnishments. I would say 60% of the time a nasty exspouse is behind it more so than the man (or woman) just doesn't want to pay.

[JVS]

58. What if they are being a deadbeat as part of an ongoing campaign...

of civil disobedience?

[treestar]

60. Why start? Then that 'll become the penalty for everything.

And to what extent? A person can miss a deadline by a day or something and make the federal deadbeat list.

This country is too punitive minded about everything. Give it a rest. Save it for the really bad guys. There's enough chasing after ordinary people for their sins. The government is already huge and would have to be even huger to enforce all this.

Punish, punish, punish. I'm getting sick of it. Do people really have no lives of their own? There already are plenty of penalties for not paying child support orders.

And if you can't afford to appeal unfair ones, that will keep even more people from voting.

And if people can't vote they have no stake in the system! Why is that so hard to see? Even felons out of jail, if they are OUT OF JAIL we need them to have a stake in the system. Why is it hard to see that it will only backlash when you try to exclude people? Now it's like you're trying to use the barest excuses.

[koopie57]

62. I wonder how many dead-beat

parents actually bother to vote anyway.

[conflictgirl]

66. No. But I would be ok with taking away their driver's licenses.

[upi402]

68. It's not a felony is it? How about deadbeat MOMS!!!???

:banghead:

[ladjf]

69. Parental negligence has nothing to do with voting rights. There are

other and more effective ways to get negligence parents to pay. There is not going to be one "payment dodger" in the country who decides to pay rather than lose his/her right to vote. Are you kidding? If they don't care about their kid, why would they care to vote?

[IsIt1984Yet]

73. Seriously be realistic for one second. The deadbeat dads I know

are not responsible in most facets of life. My son's 37 year-old deadbeat dad has never voted and it would not ANY kind of a "threat" if those rights were taken away.

Why? Ineffective and pointless.

[depakid]

74. In many states they take away drivers' licenses

which seems to me idiotic, if the point is to get them to pay the arrears on their child support.

[demobabe]

81. The majority of "deadbead dads" are "dead broke dads"

And don't even get me started about a legal system that actually encourages divorce and divisiveness: Family Law is an industry of the sickest kind.

Boiling down the issue here: we're talking about limiting the ability to vote of a group of people who are often impoverished and are more likely to benefit from voting Democratic.

It's another ruse to remove Democratic voters from voting.

Just like banning felons from voting. Same thing. More likely to vote Democrat. Don't let them vote.

Any proposition to restrict voting from any group of people should be strongly opposed. It's always a setup to discriminate against a class of people who generally would vote a certain way. Always Democrat, from what I've seen.

[RebelOne]

82. I had to vote yes, as I was married and divorced

from a deadbeat dad. I was raising 2 children on a poverty salary and could not get my ex to pay child support. He skipped town. That idiot should have had all civil rights stripped from him because he did not give a damn about his children.

[demobabe]

84. Your ex is an ass. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to vote.

What he did to you is awful. No doubt. I am very sorry for your pain and anger. I'd have those same feelings.

But that has nothing to do with his right to vote. Do you think he would have paid you child support if he wasn't allowed to vote?

[NaturalHigh]

86. No...

Neither should deadbeat moms.

[fishwax]

87. i think both proposals are absurd

both disenfranchising those on welfare (as if they are the only ones who benefit from government money :eyes:) and disenfranchising dads (or, in the rarer case, moms) who don't pay their child support.

[Egalitariat]

89. Deadbeat Dads don't vote anyways. Why would they care?***

nm

[Jack Rabbit]

90. No. Nobody should be denied the right to vote.

That rule ought to make like a little harder for the Katherine Harrises and Ken Blackwells of the world.

[omega minimo]

92. No, they should be denied the right to fuck

....:wow:
:bounce: :bounce: