Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Men's Group

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts) Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:35 AM Apr 2012

Charles Bruce and debtors prison [View all]

The video without the commentary.

Mr Bruce was sent to prison by his attorney wife for debts that exceeded 100% of his income. It happens all the time, but sadly it usually happens without video cameras in attendance.

Thanks to Dokkie to bringing up the issue.

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Charles Bruce and debtors prison [View all] lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 OP

What was his income when he was accruing the debt? noamnety Apr 2012 #1

Imputed income is a fascinating topic. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #2

I can talk some about impuded income as it applied to us. noamnety Apr 2012 #3

I'd like to see some unbiased, real data on this case, too. Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #4

Kids aren't a consumer good. One doesn't need "to pay for them", one needs to "parent" them. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #5

Here's my point. Going by the "traditional", Mitt Romney style family arrangement Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #6

The court can't mandate anything. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #7

You and I agree on much, but I think we part ways on a couple parts too. Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #8

Responsibility for ones kids? Absolutely. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #9

I hear you, Jeff. In my family it was my dad who was the alcoholic. I do suspect that both our Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #14

Fitness based on what though? Whose criteria. There really only is one acceptable one stevenleser Apr 2012 #21

I'd start with who has been providing the majority of care, and then see how the kids feel. Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #24

And I think that since the marital union is not an issue any longer, any arrangements made are not stevenleser Apr 2012 #25

You don't think, for instance, that the fact that one parent has spent 10 yrs in the workforce Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #26

No.Let's turn that around. Since one that one parent has spent 10 years in the workforce should they stevenleser Apr 2012 #27

You think I'm advocating for a particular position. I'm not. Nt Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #28

Dennis Rodman and Dave Foley Mammone Apr 2012 #12

Technically, Dave foley owes money in Canada, not the us. Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #13

So they should go to jail? Mammone Apr 2012 #15

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the narrative of "greedy ex... and !kids!" Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #16

The courts are the greedy ones Mammone Apr 2012 #17

Judges get a cut of child support that they order? Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #18

yes states get kickbacks and do pass on bonuses to judges Mammone Apr 2012 #19

excellent link. Bookmarking. nt lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #20

When your kids live with you half of the time, you are supporting them. Period. nt stevenleser Apr 2012 #22

I think denial of custodial rights should = no child support tech_smythe Apr 2012 #10

I think it should trigger revisiting the custody decision lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #11

a parent who prevents visitations... grasswire May 2012 #30

Unless it's the mother alienating the father... then it's ok tech_smythe May 2012 #31

The whole non-custodial parent is an invented and discriminatory state that is unnecessary stevenleser Apr 2012 #23

Progress is slow when there's a strong financial incentive to keep it the way it is. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #29

Is this Charles Bruce? Cokab16 Jun 2016 #32