Bush Brother's Divorce Produces Some Startling Disclosures

Associated Press ^ | Jan 26, 2004 | Pam Easton

[gatorbait]

Given how McStain whored for these people, it was pretty nervy for him to go for CFR. He's such a liar, I consider him to be a true Dimocrat.

GWB, McStain is worse as he parlayed himself into something he obviously is not. Good call.

[gatorbait]

You then ,expose yourself as a dillitante at best and a lying coward at worst. If you open a door, expect someone or something , to enter it. But, in your hissy, recall the expression of door.hit.arse.on the way out.

You're a lightweight.

[George W. Bush]

Good call.

I guess we can't disagree all the time, can we? ; )

[gatorbait]

I guess we can't disagree all the time, can we? ; )

Well of course not! Shake? :-)

[Lucky Dog]

Sounds like a complaint to the bar association, if you ask me... Of course,nobody did.

[George W. Bush]

Shake? :-)

Okay. But no hugging.

<grin>

[gatorbait]

Okay. But no hugging.

Well thank God, I was told you giggle when kissed.:-)

(ducking and running as we speak....)

[sauropod]

How much is she worth? The article makes no mention of that.

I can tell you from personal experience that the court system is biased against men. My child support payments are:

1) automatically taken out of my check even though i always paid on time and was not a flight risk.

2) are more than 2/3 of what this guy's are even though I cannot afford to pay such a sum.

3) are garnished from "after tax" income.

4) are not counted as income to my ex-wife

5) are not deductible on my taxes

6) bear no relation to her financial picture. My ex-wife is much better off financially than I am. And finally...

7) Individual states receive money from the federal government for the number of people that they directly have under their control for child support payments. The State has a vested interest in perpetuating this racket.

So sweetie cups, DON'T YOU DARE insinuate that I think that men should be able to walk away from their obligations to their children!

That is a canard used by dishonest people to perpetuate a corrupt system.

[George W. Bush]

Uh-oh, someone's been gossipping about me again.

[sauropod]

for the troll list?

[discostu]

All of which has exactly what to do with the amount Neill is paying. Father SHOULD pay child support after a divorce, period end of sentence. The amount is 100% reasonable given his income level. Trying to hold up philandering Neil Bush paying 2% of his income in child support as proof that the system goes against men simply won't cut it.

[sauropod]

See my post no. 89.

I am not defending Neil Bush, btw. The system is corrupt.

[sauropod]

My comments are directed at the more general problem.

Try looking at the child support "guidelines" for your state and come back here and tell me they are reasonable.

[discostu]

Here's your original comment on this thread:
"In the meantime, he has been ordered to pay $1,500 a month in child support for two of his children, Pierce, 17 and Ashley, 14. The couple's oldest child, Lauren, is 19."

And the Child Support Shakedown continues...

Now how is THIS PARTICULAR case part of the shakedown. Is this an unreasonable figure given his income level? Are either of these children not his? Is the mother unfit for custody for the children? Is he being denied visitation?

The system very well might be corrupt but this case is not an example of such corruption.

[discostu]

No your comment (post #7) was directed at THIS case in particular.

The guidelines in my state aren't the topic of discussion, THIS CASE is. How is $1500 a month for two kids from someone getting over a million a year of income a shakedown?

[Devil_Anse]

As the old commercial said, "sometimes you feel like a nut..."

The hazelnut brothers. BWAAAHAHAHAHA!

But even better, even better than the hazelnut capers, I liked the one where the thinner brother was doing this woman on the couch at the Rodhams' grandpa's lake house, see, and her boyfriend or husband came up on the deck and saw them through the glass door... mayhem ensued... and the fatter brother (Hugh, I think) had to come out to his brother's rescue.

[sauropod]

Point taken.

I was trying to say (perhaps my original post did not state it very well) that there are a number of things to be taken into account for child support. Including the Sharon Bush's income level and earning potential.

In this PARTICULAR case $1500/mo. is not unreasonable given that Mr. Bush makes $1 Millon/year.

In MOST cases, monies such as this are paid out for people that make much much less than this. Anywhere from 50k up to maybe 100k. Sometimes much less than 50k. It is arbitrary and entirely up to the judge.

The decisions of the family law and special master judges are extremely hard to appeal. These decisions often manufacture "deadbeat dads" since they do not have the ability to pay such a monthly tax on their earnings.

Let me further be clear. If Mr. Bush is a philanderer, he deserves what he got.

[sauropod]

Well, my comment "and the shakedown continues" was probably a bit smartassed on my part.

I am bitter about it.

[Devil_Anse]

Touché, I think.

Hey, c'mon--that guy William Blythe died in a wreck with a case of whiskey (minus one bottle, I think) in the car... got thrown from the car and the poor sap drowned in a nearby creek, I think. Given that scenario, isn't it possible that he is the father of the current train-wreck which inflicted itself on us for 8 years?

Let's just put it this way: whoever the father is, he is probably deceased by now, and he's a perfect example of the saying, "The evil that men do lives long after them."