I May be Going to Debtor's Prison

[WinniSkipper]

303. Easy

You want to know how? They'll do it like this. Let's assume your position, that the majority of people who don't pay child support (not just divorced couples, unwed couples, partners, everyone) are because they can't. They don't have the money. Let's say that is the official "Democratic" position. I can basically say "I can't pay" and you're off the hook. And before we get into the "each case should be judged" route. That's not what courts are for.

Parents who had support because it was legally required - all of that dries up. If I don't pay, I don't go to jail, so I am not going to pay. As well intentioned as you believe non-custodial parents are, they money will drastically be reduced.

So how do Democrats make up that shortfall? Because you have to make up the shortfall right? You can't yank money away from all the custodial parents without replacing it. Or are you actually suggesting that? For now let's assume you are not, and that the money will be replaced.

If you read the info from the NYTimes, the vast majority of children born out of wedlock are minority and poor. And you have just grabbed any legal recourse they had for support. The right will jump all over this and spin it as one of two things.

1) You want to raise taxes to replace the lost money. Since the majority of these women are likely also on some sort of public assistance, the right would have an absolute field day with that. The right already hates people on public assistance. So now in your scenario Democrats are saying "it is not the parents legal responsibility". How do you think that will play in the election?

2) It would inevitably bring up (from the right) that poor people should not have children if they cannot support them. And since the Democratic position is that non-custodial parents don't have to support their children, you give their position substance.

Do you really want to give the right EITHER of those positions to start from?