What do you want them to eat tho? Steak and fish is at least healthy which will cut down on the Medicaid end.

^^ this is what smugness from an entitled narcissist looks like who thinks she is entitled to her ex paying equity into her house because she popped out a few children.


Least any of you get the wrong woman pregnant, this is where your money will go, towards equity in her house but you get no equity.

I never thought I'd see the day when I was nodding along to a lot of what Leo said, but here we are.

What are you talking about? You love agreeing with me.

I was at a deli the other day and there was a sign that said "By law, any sandwich that is sold hot or toasted cannot be purchased by EBT". I mean, not that it affects me personally, but WTF, really? I can see banning cigarettes and alcohol and stuff like that, but hot sandwiches? Why?

This. Oddly I'm actually on spread with him as he made some good posts in a thread the other day too

I guess because it's a convenience food to eat right then and costs more.

You'll get more food for your kids if you purchase ingredients and take them home

But the cold subs from the same deli were OK. What's the difference?

LMAO.

ded

Not since you've been back from your hiatus. You say some things these days that make me arch an eyebrow here and there. This is solid stuff, though.

Oh OK, fair enough. You'd think theyd either both be ok or not ok

Prepared food is a convenience, you are paying for both the food and for someone to prepare it. I guess you are ok with your tax dollars being used to prepare food for those unwilling to work but I would rather they use all that free time they have to prepare their own food.Its a government run program and you are surprised there are inconsistencies? The cold sandwiches should be ineligible as well but government programs are inherently poorly ran. If we cancelled all EBT programs and forced these people to work, then they could buy whatever sandwiches they wanted with their money they actually earned.

Call me out on it. Sometimes I'm funnin. Every now and then I like to goof. Got any examples?

I have to congratulate you on your self-awareness when choosing your user name.Uh huh. Lots of people in here that don't know what they are talking about or have an unusual situation.

That ex who seems to be spending more money than you think she should? Maybe she is an idiot and is running up credit card bills. Maybe she has a new man that is spending on her. As long as your kids needs are being met that isn't your problem anymore because you are divorced, right?

If she is asking you to spend extra money you can choose to say no if you think it is unreasonable or fraudulent.

If the children are being neglected, there are signs of some kind of abuse, or illegal activity in the home then deal with that.

Many of these posts sound like sour grapes pissing and moaning because you're mad an ex has a decent life without you.

OT:

There is a certain percentage of people in the world who are selfish and unscrupulous and will maximize any system to their own advantage. Welcome to humanity. I happen to believe that said people are the minority.

Sure, there are some frauders abusing food stamps and likely other government programs too. But there aren't that many and the people just accessing the system as it was created aren't living it up at your expense.

IMO certain factions want you to hate poor people so you don't notice how much they are sucking out of your wallet for themselves. And the other factor is you don't want to believe that could ever be you because you want to keep a sense of control and hold on to the idea that bad things don't happen to good people so if you just do everything right then you will be okay.

For those who don't know food stamps aren't that generous. The government has an allocation amount based on something called the Thrifty food plan which is supposed to be enough money to buy food to keep you alive. It is not adjusted by locale and they apply the same number no matter what your local grocery prices are like.

They multiply your gross income by .3 because they think you should spend 30% of your income on food even if you don't have 30% of your income available for food because there isn't that much left after you pay for luxuries like housing, utilities, transportation, and medicine. The difference between the Thrifty plan allocation and 30% of your income is what you get in food stamps for the month.

So for easy math let's say that 30% of your income is $300 and the Thrifty plan says you can get enough food for $320 you will get $20 a month in food stamps. Now you might really only have $50 left from your own income after you pay expenses so you actually only have $70 a month for food, but that is just too damn bad.

This is how I feel. I feel pretty violated that I'm agreeing with so much of what he's saying.

Yup. My whole point is if they are in such abject poverty that our tax dollars are required to subsidize their groceries, then they should not be going towards high end food products. It should be restricted to necessities. You can eat plenty healthy on fresh produce, rice, beans, and chicken/pork/tilapia/cheaper cuts of beef. There is no logical reason for someone who needs government assistance to afford groceries to be buying a USDA Prime ribeye steak at $20/lb on the taxpayer's dime.

Nah, nothing I can think of off the top of my head. My mood tends to play too much into how I read things too, so that's just as likely. LOL

yeah. doesn't have to be specifics but i'd say the top 75% of the amount needs to be accounted for (you don t have to cover every small purchase).

Even if you have receipts, how do you prove it was spent on the kid or not returned?

Or if the man is a millionaire and judge awards the mother an obscene amount of money per month, how do you spend all that on a kid without cometely spoiling them?

System is fuked.

You think youre witty?

You think plopping out some kids entitles you to a man to pay towards your mortgage while receiving no equity of his own in the home?


Do you understand what happens when two people unmarried live together and one person owns the house and they split up? Do you realize they are entitled to the equity they paid in?

who's going to pay people to review these receipts?

There should be a receipt requirement as well as an escrow account requirement.

The receipts should be provided to the person paying child support (95% of the time the man). He should also have full view of the transactions on the escrow account.

If he sees that the money is being abused and not being used for his child, he now has the evidence he needs to bring it to family court and have his child support payments reduced since the mother is obviously being overpaid to where she has excess funds being used for items other than the child. The court can then reduce her child support payments to what she truly needs.

There is no need for the state to routinely audit the transactions. I have a feeling the man would be keenly interested in where his money is going and do that himself.

When the child turns 18 the unused funds in the escrow account are returned to the man. Today, these unused funds go in the woman's pocket. Or as we have seen here within this thread, go towards mortgage payments and equity towards buying the woman a house.

I hope a lot of you in this thread never reproduce because you have zero clue how expensive it is to raise kids.

I just came in to tell Tripod that snails does have more pictures dummy and they are all pretty HNNNG but she's accounted for.

i find it hilarious how rich parents who get divorced, the court basically says "you must spoil this child"

No need to pay that much. The type of people willing to take that deal would do it for 10k. The money should only be given if the sterilization is irreversible though

The main argument doesn't seem to be the amount levied against the fathers, but rather that the amount is actually used to benefit the child

I have 2 kids with an ex I pay support for...
I have 2 kids now with my current wife so am well aware how expensive it is

I have a set amount I pay to my ex, along with 50% of medical bills and incidentals, and I must provide their health/dental/vision insurance
I have no issue with the amount, nor any of the judgement (not that it would matter anyway) but I do have issue with how it's allocated
In fact, I would happily pay a percentage more to privately fund the fees in administering the process and eliminate govt cost

I could provide a TLDR of numerous situations where my 50% responsibilityin addition to the set amount she receives in supporthas been exploited
Each time it's exploited, that's resources poached from my current family

She works seasonally (basically when schools are out for summer) in a tourist town as a waitress and collects unemployment the remainder of the year
She does not lead the lifestyle of a non educated seasonal waitress in a tourist town

If a receipt system were to cost me more, I would happily sign on as should anyone who had their child in the best interest
Simply saying "the child's needs are met" is a remarkably poor mindset

Moms getting child support should explain all their finances. It’s like for example if you’re on food stamps. You’re not allowed to buy wlcohol with THAT money, but receiving that money does free up cash for alcohol.

If a child goes without her finances need to be looked through. A child should never go without.

yes 100%