Rep. Joe Walsh (Tea Party-Glass House) owes child support

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jul 28, 2011.

  1. rdowns, Jul 28, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2011

    rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    The schmucks that were elected to get us out of this financial mess are worse at it than the schmucks who got us into this mess. Of course, the fools that call themselves Americans will elect them again.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...child-support/2011/03/04/gIQA92xGfI_blog.html
     
  2. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #2
    Absolutely without shame. It makes one wonder if he's simply a corporate pawn.
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    No wonder no one has posted in this thread. We're just not surprised anymore.
     
  4. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #4
    It's hard to find the energy, frankly, for another instance of hypocrisy from a Representative.

    It's becoming clear: politicians who publicly worry about homosexuals are secretly gay; politicians who publicly worry about fiduciary responsibilities can't pay their own bills; politicians who are warmongers are deferment jockeys; and a significant subset, several who serious moralizers, were apparently sexual predators.
     
  5. dscuber9000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Indiana, US
  6. Surely Guest

    Surely

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #6
    Yeah, that's about right.
     
  7. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #7
    Wait, .... what??? ;)
     

    Attached Files:

  8. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #9
    Disgusted ,appalled , tired , disappointed, revolted, afraid - but not surprised:(
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    NO- not the semi-cool one.
     
  10. Liquorpuki macrumors 68020

    Liquorpuki

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Location:
    City of Angels
    #11
    Personally I think child support and alimony are BS concepts in the first place
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #12
    Alimony is an outdated idea in my opinion, but if you have kids you should support them financially.
     
  12. Liquorpuki macrumors 68020

    Liquorpuki

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Location:
    City of Angels
    #13
    You should, but I've known enough guys that pay child support to know half the time, the money ends up going to shopping sprees instead of the kids
     
  13. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #14
    I sense a song coming...

    [to the tune of "Life's Been Good"]
    I gotta kid, but I don't pay the bills
    I work in Congress, a corporate shill
    I made a liar of the President
    I got no morals, I'm totally bent!


    (Hey, whaddaya want for two minutes of work? Weird Al?)
     
  14. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #15
    I would say so, sexist I believe.

    Saying that women are still incapable of taking care of themselves, without a "man".

    It has now been rendered to a punishment/vengeance/pissing-contest.

    Child support, absolutely. You make 'em*, you pay for 'em.

    *Next, on Maury.
     
  15. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #16
    Hate to slam on your brakes there, Hef, but as I work for a family-law attorney, I can tell you that spousal support (the word "alimony" went out with platform shoes) is determined by a number of factors, not the least being the respective incomes and expenses of both parties. I've seen men ordered little or no spousal support because she makes more than enough money to maintain her living expenses. However, a lot of women, even in this day and age, simply don't make nearly as much as men do.

    OTOH, as far as the pissing contests go... some of 'em get fast and furious. Yowza.

     
  16. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #17
    So? A lot of people don't make enough to support themselves. Why should the guy have to support his ex wife? The concept of alimony is BS. Child support is one thing. But alimony? It needs to be done away with.
     
  17. Surely Guest

    Surely

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #18
    I don't agree with that.

    Think of this scenario: A couple has been together for 25 years. When they first got married, the spouses just started working or they were just out of school. Over the 25 years, one of spouses started a business that grew substantially and became very successful over the 25 years. The other spouse started out working, but the couple decided to have children, and so they decided that one of the spouses would quit his/her job in order to raise the kids. Meanwhile, the other spouse continues along with his/her career, and is the sole breadwinner of the household. After 25 years, the marriage falls apart.

    I think it's fair to say that the spouse who stayed home to raise the kids played an important role in helping the other spouse to build his/her business. Even if that spouse didn't work in the business, the fact that s/he stayed home to make sure the kids were raised properly and that the house was taken care of allowed the other spouse to focus on building a successful business.

    The stay-at-home spouse should be entitled to support because, in a way, s/he sacrificed his/her potential career so the other spouse could become successful, and for the good of the family.

    Even in a situation in which the couple has no kids, there should be a fair distribution of the couple's assets. The married couple is like a partnership, and if the partnership breaks up, the assets that were accumulated during the marriage should be split equally (unless there is a prenuptial agreement that states otherwise).
     
  18. IntelliUser macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Location:
    Why does it matter?
    #19
    His children don't have a child support problem, they have a spending problem.

    -Bill Maher
     
  19. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #20

    Awesome. Signature worthy.
     
  20. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
  21. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #22
    This reminds me of the old saying " Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".
     
  22. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  23. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #24
  24. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #25
    I think you have a good point, but there are fewer and fewer stay at home parents, and even fewer who don't have marketable skills. In specific cases, alimony can still be necessary, but generally speaking, it's an increasingly outdated concept.

    I agree with you on assets and I think that can be part of the negotiations with regard to alimony.
     

Share This Page