Government

Men and Women

We have been having a lively conversation about child support and paternity. A comment here made me want to write a complete post as a story and possible warning from my own past:

The one thing that I have always been poor at, is in romantic relationships with women. I did have a girlfriend once who told me that it was because I am a professional rescuer in every sense of the word, and she told me that because I feel the need to rescue everyone, some women will take advantage of that. I’m not sure if she is right, but a string of failed relationships does tell a compelling story.

One of those relationships was as big of a mess as you could ever imagine. This one was the one and only time that I dated a woman who had children. She had two of them, and about 3 months after we began dating, I let her move in with me because she and her two kids had nowhere else to go. I helped her out in a lot of ways. I let her use my second car, I provided her with a cell phone on my account, and treated her children properly. A few months later, we broke up, but she kept my car and my cell phone. Then she sued me for child support.

So it turns out that we had dated for a year and a couple of days before breaking up, and there is a law that says if a man acts like a father to children that aren’t his for a year or more, but that man is the only father figure these children know, the court can consider what is in the best interests of the children and can compel him to visit, spend time with, and pay child support for the children. The theory is called parentage by estoppel. Under the doctrine of parentage by estoppel, a court can order a non-biological man to pay child support if:

  • He knew he was not the biological father.
  • He held himself out or acted as if her were the child’s father
  • The child relied on that representation, forming a parental bond and treating him as a father.

This is applied in narrow circumstances, often in stepparent or long-term partner situations. A year or more of acting as the only father figure can support such a finding. Once established as a legal or equitable parent, support obligations can follow even after separation. So that’s what she tried to do.

In my case, she told the court I was abusing her, so she wanted child support and also a domestic violence injunction. That way, I wouldn’t get other parental rights like visitation or joint custody, but I would still have to pay child support. It took me a year to get out of that mess. You can read about much of the case here. I resolved to never again date a woman who had a child.

I made the mistake of telling the story to another girlfriend, and she tried doing the same thing, just minus the child support. It was also a mess. The only good thing with this one is that she was stupid and I only had to deal with it for about a month. I can certainly understand the idea of men not wanting anything to do with women. Thanks to our court system, relationships with women are something that is fraught with danger.

By Divemedic, ago

Twenty Years

The community note on this tweet is wrong.

Let me explain. Child support is based upon the sum of the incomes of both parents. There is a chart and a formula. So let’s say that the father has two jobs. One where he works for the fire department, and a second job where he works as a janitor at a theme park. The mother claims to be working 20 hours per week as a bartender making $6 per hour. The child support is calculated and they take 70% of the father’s income for the couple’s two kids, but aren’t taking any of the income from his second job. The amount being taken is still less than 60% of dad’s total income, so they are below the Federal limit.

I would guess that’s what is happening here. The $163 the man is left with is the income from his first job, and he also has income from a second job. The example I used above wasn’t bullshit- that’s what happened to me when I was paying child support. It’s what actually made me homeless. The judge didn’t care. When I told him the money they were leaving me wasn’t enough to survive on because it wasn’t even enough to pay rent, the judge said “Get a second job.” When I pointed out that I already had two jobs, his reply was, “Well, get a third job, then.”

So you do that, and guess what? Now you are making more money, meaning that your child support increases again. It was impossible to get ahead. When I had one job, I was paying $700 per month in child support. I was forced to live on $700 per month. I got a second (part time) job, the wife went back to the judge, and my support went up to $900 per month. But hey, now I had $900 per month to live on.

How was my wife making it? She didn’t have a job. She had $700 per month in child support, $400 worth of food stamps, $300 in earned income credit, $200 per month in WIC, and $300 worth of welfare, plus she was getting $750 a month babysitting two children while their parents were at work. She netted a total of $2650 a month. Yeah, she got half of whatever I was making, plus she got to keep all of her money AND collected all kinds of government assistance money.  That is the equivalent of grossing over $40,000 a year. Meanwhile, I was living below the poverty level on what was left. It is easy to see why many men become “deadbeats.” The child support system is fundamentally unfair, and there is no mechanism in place to ensure that the money actually supports the child.

They take the money right out of your paycheck before you get it. Some men work under the table or drift from job to job to avoid paying. That doesn’t really work. If you try that, they take your professional licenses away. Good luck making a living at anything other than minimum wage without a license. Still, some men work at their own business or have help working under the table. Those men get their passports and driver’s licenses taken. The debt accrues and never goes away, not even in bankruptcy. Eventually, they will toss you in prison if you aren’t paying.

I always knew that my ‘child support’ was going to support their mother, not the kids. That is why things like this always make me angry, when I think about how women use their children to ride the gravy train, while their fathers get accused of being ‘deadbeat dads’ because they can’t afford to pay.

As soon as the kids turned 16, she threw them out of the house and had them live with me. First my son, and a year later, my daughter. As soon as it was no longer profitable, they were unceremoniously thrown out.

She still plays the game to get your tax dollars. Right after the first kid was thrown out, she got a job at WalMart as a cashier, and ‘injured’ her back soon thereafter. She now collects Social Security Disability and collects survivor benefits because the man she married after me passed away. To this day as far as I know, my ex-wife has never had a job her entire adult life other than that one year working at Wal Mart. Now that all three of her kids (2 from me, 1 from the dead guy who came next) are grown and out of the house, she lives in a doublewide trailer near Gainesville with her now elderly mother. Between them, they collect more than $5500 per month in SS benefits.

It’s been twenty years since I last paid child support. It still pisses me off. America’s new class of entrepreneurs are young women having children out of wedlock, or they marry a guy, have a kid, then divorce him, and collect. It may or may not even be his kid. Most people who work for a living actually make far less money than America’s new entrepreneurs. Forget college, the average college graduate only makes $44,000 a year upon graduation after 4 or more years of college. By the age of 20, a young woman can be making more than that with almost no effort, all she has to do is get pregnant a few times.

By Divemedic, ago

College Scam

In 1970, only half of Americans graduated from high school, less than 10 percent went to college. When you were 15 or 16, you went out and got a job. Those who DID go to college were guaranteed a good career, because they were overwhelmingly doctors, accountants, lawyers, and architects. Parents saw that, and told their kids that the key to a great job was going to college. It was good advice, except too many people followed it.

The government, being run by those same parents and their peers, approved a plan to give out student loans and grants so all of those people could go to college. This greatly increased demand and money chasing those college educations. Everyone wanted to have a high paying college job because they considered physical labor to be for people who weren’t smart enough to go to college. We’ve all heard the insults- if you don’t have a college degree or if you joined the military, it’s because you are stupid.

Colleges attempted to meet demand by adding all sorts of degree programs. The government soon passed rules requiring a college degree, any college degree, in order to get a job. You couldn’t get a job sweeping the floors of the courthouse without a 4 year degree. Tuition began to rise- much faster than inflation. By the time of the turn of the 21st century, the cost of a semester’s tuition was up from $400 in 1970 to over $3,500, an increase of 11.2% per year- more than 3 times the official rate of inflation. During the same period of time, $400 in gold increased to $2,600 worth of gold. By 2000, it cost more than $55,000 to get a 4 year degree by the time room and board was factored in. The demand and profit in college became so great that colleges began opening in strip malls.

In the Orlando area alone, there are more than 40 colleges and 500,000 college students. Of course, most of them won’t graduate. That’s actually good news because there can’t possibly be enough jobs to handle 100,000 college graduates a year in a town of only 3 million. Even so, more than 25,000 people a year graduate with bachelor’s degrees each year, and another 16,000 with associates degrees.

So by the year 2000, people were earning degrees in things like Outdoor Recreation, or Medieval and Renaissance French Poetry. (Yes, I actually have met people with degrees in these majors) There being no demand for those jobs, the people who took out those huge loans were now having to pay $550 a month for a degree that didn’t get them a job paying nearly enough to do that. So that’s how we got here:

This woman thinks she is better than the cashiers at Target. A minimum wage job is beneath her. You can see the attitude. She thinks her bachelor’s degree- whatever it happens to be in- guarantees her a job because she is smarter than those uneducated morons who didn’t go to college.

The college majors with the highest unemployment are:

  1. Anthropology
  2. Computer Engineering
  3. Fine Arts
  4. Performing Arts
  5. Computer Science
  6. Architecture
  7. Art History
  8. Physics
  9. Early Childhood Education
  10. Environmental Studies

Note that 3 of the 10 most unemployable majors are in the arts. Art and expression aren’t things you can learn from a book for the most part. Sure, there are some things you can learn like music, but there aren’t nearly enough jobs in that field to keep up with new graduates.

Computer science and engineering are in that list because the technology of computers is changing so rapidly that the things you learn in college are obsolete before you even graduate. The professor teaching your course is likely passing on obsolete knowledge using outdated textbooks, and granting you degree certifying you are well versed in yesterday’s technology.

Physics and education are there for teachers. Those fields, even for those who CAN get a job in them, don’t pay enough to justify those loan payments.

The best degrees for employment are the same as they were in 1970: medicine, law, and civil engineering. The only problem is a medical degree now costs half a million dollars and twelve years of your time. College needs to be trimmed down and made cheaper. For most people, college is simply a bad investment, especially in a useless major. However, picking a good major won’t help if you can’t understand or master the material.

Two year colleges have a 43% graduation rate. Four year colleges are better at 71%, but how many of them are graduating with useless degrees? Of 2018’s entry class, 77% of Asian students, 73% of white students, 52% of Hispanic students, and 45% of black students graduated. Black student enrollment at elite U.S. colleges has declined significantly following the 2023 Supreme Court ban on affirmative action, with some institutions seeing nearly a 50% drop in new black students.

Factoring in the useless majors and dropout rates, perhaps only 20% of those who go to college will actually gain real benefit from them.

Colleges like Yale and Harvard report graduation rates in the 98% range, but I can’t help but wonder if that is due to students being passed along whether they learn anything or not.

I got a nursing degree. Half of the people trying to get into nursing couldn’t even finish the prerequisites. Half of those who entered the two year nursing program didn’t finish by getting their RN license. So we are talking 25% of those who tried to become nurses actually made it. Of those who DO make it, unemployment rates are under 1.5%, indicating a shortage of nurses.

Firefighting was about the same. There were 25 people in my fire academy class. There was a waiting list to get in. 80% of those who began the class went on to be licensed firefighters. It was still difficult to get a job, though. When my department had an opening, we generally had more than 200 applicants for every job opening. A third of those who became licensed never got hired. About a third of them left the profession within 5 years. It’s a tough job with a high attrition rate. About a third of them wound up rising to the ranks to retirement , and couple of them became chiefs. All of them I have spoken with have retired or left firefighting.

By Divemedic, ago

Asset Forfeiture

This violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. A person whose Corvette is taken after a DUI is paying a much higher fine that a guy who loses a moped for the same offense. He is also paying a fine that is disproportionate to the crime. A Corvette costs at least $70k, with many approaching 6 figures- which is the fine for bank fraud, a monetary crime.

I make no bones about being opposed to asset forfeiture as it is currently practiced. I think that it’s immoral and unconstitutional to take someone’s property without due process. It goes like this: you are pulled over on any pretext, no matter how weak. They ask for permission to search the vehicle. It doesn’t matter if you agree or not. If you refuse, they get a drug dog to alert on your car and search it any way. Even if the dog finds no drugs, and you aren’t arrested or charged with a crime, they will take any money they find. They tell the motorist to sign a form abandoning the cash or face a felony arrest. Sign it or not, they are taking the cash and you are never getting it back. This guy lost more than $100k in cash and PMs in a case just like this.

Many states and localities have made this scenario illegal, but the cops don’t care. They cops simply file the forfeiture in Federal court where the local law doesn’t apply. No matter what, if you have money, they are taking it. Any cop who tells you that civil asset forfeiture is morally or Constitutionally acceptable is a tyrannical asshole, and I will cheer when there is a video of them getting smoked. Even in the presence of a criminal conviction, taking thousands of dollars from someone is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Don’t bother quoting any bullshit case on the matter. I can fucking read, and some lawyer in a black dress trying to justify his boss’ theft of the people’s hard earned money is a travesty.

To those who think that the cops or the military will take your side in the civil war that we all see coming: they won’t. They will take the side of whomever is signing their paychecks, and that isn’t you. I think that most people who are drawn to police work do so for good reasons. They are then captured by the lust for power and money.

In this case, the cops want to drive a cool car, so they pull you over on a pretext and simply take your car, Constitution be damned. Power corrupts.

This is why the original Constitution purposely kept the government weak and subservient. People, however, just love having the power to tell others how to live. In order to be able to control others, the citizenry gave the government more and more police powers. Those police agencies are now so powerful that we are in a police state. One where you can’t even be confident in your ability to drive down the highway without being robbed at gunpoint by a gang member wearing a badge.

EDITED TO ADD:

A second DUI in Florida is a misdemeanor. It’s punishable by up to 9 months in jail and a $2000 fine. If your BAC is greater than 0.15 or there is a minor in the car, the penalty increases to 12 months and a $4000 fine. Additionally, the car is disabled for 30 days after the convict is released from jail. I don’t think it should be legal to take a $100,000 car for a misdemeanor that carries a max fine of $4000. That’s blatantly unconstitutional.

On a different note, the police should not profit from asset forfeiture. That creates a conflict of interest. Any proceeds from forfeited property should be paid into a fund that reimburses victims of crime. The cops shouldn’t be looking at a cool sports car while trying to figure out how to take it for their own use or profit.

SECOND EDIT

In this second edit, I want to point out that all burglaries nationwide result in $3 billion a year in losses. Ironically, the amount seized by the cops under asset forfeiture laws is about $2 billion at the Federal level and a total for all government forfeitures is $4.5 billion a year, with 71% of all forfeitures done without a hearing- they take it, and that’s it.

We would lose less money as a society if we just didn’t have cops.

By Divemedic, ago

Mom, he’s looking at me

The Chicago Cubs are suing a bar located near their stadium, because the bar isn’t paying the Cubs for allowing their customers to look at the team while they play baseball. The team is claiming the rooftop bar is misappropriating the team’s property rights because the bar is selling admission to the bar and allowing patrons to watch Cubs games from that vantagepoint. It looks like the courts are going to side with the team. In the meantime, the city is investigating the structural integrity of the roofs, issuing citations to those in danger of collapse. I’m sure those investigations are totally legit and were in no way sponsored or encouraged by the billionaire team owner.

Money talks, I guess.

The Ricketts family, billionaire owners of the Cubs, began purchasing the nearby rooftop properties in order to control the marketable sight lines into the stadium and by the end of the 2016 season, owned (or controlled via agreement) 11 of the 13 rooftop locations that had a view into the nearby baseball field. Wrigley Rooftop is one of the two that has thus far refused to sell.

I don’t care what the court says, if I can see it from my property, then you have no claim to force people to pay for looking at it. This will open all sorts of legal maneuvering. If my neighbor can see into my yard, can I sue him for watching me swim in my pool?

If the Cubs don’t want people in nearby tall buildings watching them play, perhaps they should build a dome. I’m sure they can get taxpayers to foot the bill. After all, teams build sports ball complexes at taxpayer expense all the time. For example, the Tampa Bay Rays are getting a Billion dollars of taxpayer money to build their new stadium, even while the local governments of the state are assuring the taxpayers that property taxes are totally needed to fund things everyone agrees are needed- things like firefighters, police, schools, and roads: “The money we take in from property taxes totally is being used for needed services and is in no way being used to fund billion dollar sports complexes. The money going to build places of business for billionaires to pay millionaires to play children’s games is totally coming from a different line item that was totally taken from taxpayers in a different way, so it doesn’t count.”

If that doesn’t work, perhaps the team could try the Scooby Do method and pay someone to dress a ghost in order to force the owners to sell.

Meanwhile, the shortstop for the Rays is being paid $182 million to play baseball. Jason Heyward is being paid $184 million to play the game by the Cubs. Meanwhile, the bar in question (Wrigley Field Rooftop Bar) is estimated to be making $1 million a year.

This is one of those times where a billionaire is doing something immoral to make more money, and the government shouldn’t be getting involved. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Remember, when the legislature decides what can be bought or sold, the first thing to be bought and sold are the legislators themselves.

By Divemedic, ago

Don’t Even Open the Door

This is why you don’t talk to cops, and my advice is that you don’t even open the door.

Also, you DO have cameras in your vehicles and on the perimeter of your house, right?

My wife’s new Lexus? Yeah, I just got done putting her dash camera in. It’s worth it. Cops lie, because in many cases, their jobs require them to make arrests. If they aren’t good at their jobs, they become good at faking their jobs.

I am not familiar with Colorado law, but this cop just writes a summons on the spot for her trial. No discovery, no opportunity for a lawyer, no due process? That seems rather sketchy.

By Divemedic, ago