Interesting point that she forgets to mention: More kids are disqualified from the military for drug use. Just like our current Commander in Chief.
A major point of history has been missed here. The Republicans were a third party. The Whigs did not transform. The emergence of the Republican party spelled their doom. People who wanted a party with the courage to take on slavery and the drive to move America forward became Republicans. Men like Lincoln, Seward, and Chase led the party with courage. Whigs without heart left the party in droves for political gains - and became the first RINOs.
History can repeat itself. Perhaps it even should.
You know so little it's disgusting. The Court system already had all the people needed for enforcement. The Clerks of Court started answering to CSEA because the legislature wanted the federal incentives. The Judges already do all the work, and every judge can do as he or she feels fit. CSEA doesn't decide cases. It just ignores out of state orders it disagrees with and salivates that someone will sue them in a ND court so they have jurisdiction so they can apply ND laws instead of the law of the state they disagree with. Ever heard of full faith and credit? Its the concept that each state will recognize and HONOR all the orders of another state. CSEA, particularly Jim Fleming, the new director who was their counsel, blatantly ignores orders where indigent obligors were ordered to pay less than ND would have. We've had child support guidelines for 3 decades and no lawsuits because judges differ. The ND S.Ct does a good job of making sure the courts consider the same points. It changes nothing except taking CSEA's extra-judicial abuses out of the picture. You're either a moron or a legislator. If the latter, now would be a perfect time to wean ND from federal programs, starting with Title IV-D incentives
Here's an argument for doing so: The recipient doesn't have to claim it as income, yet can qualify for an earned income credit. It makes sense that if that money is going to be taxed it's taxed in the pockets it ends up in or taxed against the person claiming the child on their tax returns. It's a concept that's been recognized with regard to alimony for decades but denied when it comes to child support because it's social engineering to make absent parents suffer even more rather than one to maximize resources available to the entire family.
No, idiot. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. I'm talking as an attorney with experience with them who saw out of state cases where CSEA chose to ignore valid orders rather than return money illegally collected. It's an agency that should be abolished and the courts should do what they consider best rather than want feds mandate to maximize Title IV-D moneys.
ND Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) has long sought to maximize collections rather than worry about what is best for the family. They disregard valid orders and tell obligors who've already fought an expensive legal battle in another state to "sue me in ND" when doing do will give ND CSEA jurisdiction and the ability to apply its higher guidelines. ND CSEA is not a servant of the people but a boil on the ass of government.
If not for Clinton the Chinese wouldn't be the threat they are today. He is their number one lobbyist and the US' number one sell out.
... he had the good sense, or grasp of reality, to sign bills for a lower capital gains and putting welfare brood mares to work that a Republican majority in both houses sent him.
Corn Flakes don't fluctuate over dimes and nickles at the pump. And the cost of grain in cereal or bread is negligible, so $3 for a bushel in raw product is pennies in the short term. But long term is. When a huge percentage of corn is diverted to ethanol instead of Corn Flakes that does drive up the cost of Corn Flakes because corn is no longer a $2 a bushel as it was before ethanol and remains over $3 all the time and hit $5 even before wheat harvest was done.
Even if the oil companies skewed the numbers (and that number of 1.29 came out of California, friendlier to ethanol than oil) I've always read numbers that had 11% or less return on the energy investment- from dry land farming. From an energy standpoint ethanol is worthless.
If ethanol is so efficiently produced why isn't E-85 cheaper? We have several ethanol plants within 100 50 miles of Fargo. E-85 should be dirt cheap, but it's not. The loss in MPG from the reduced BTUs doesn't justify the cost if you calculate how many cents per mile it costs to drive on E-85 versus good old gasoline. When ND eliminated the fuel taxes temporarily on E-85 the cost difference wasn't even as great as the tax advantage. From an energy standpoint ethanol is a farce. Its selling point is that it's good for ag; period.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Experiment