From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Keywords: child-support, visitation
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:26:20 GMT

In article <C18uv0.28F@news2.cis.umn.edu>, gslars@staff.tc.umn.edu (Greg Larson) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.171948.514@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
> >
> >     Inaugural Address: "We must stop expecting something for
> >nothing."  W. Clinton.
> >
> >     Why is it appropriate then, Mr President, to demand child
> >support from thousands of men, without enforcing the rights
> >of the fathers to see their children?
> 
> Where does he state his policy in this regard (you seem pretty
> good with quotes)?

He has never, to my knowledge, ever mentioned visitation.  He has
repeatedly stated he believes in Draconian child support enforcement
measures.  e.g.

"... Do I think we ought to have a Draconian system of national child
support enforcement?  I sure do.  I really believe that.  I do."
Clinton in interview with Chris Matthews, San Francisco Examiner 10/4/92.

"To the fathers who have chosen to abandon their children by neglecting
their child support: Take responsibility for your children, or we will
force you to do so."  New York City speech, July 16, 1992

He has repeatly made sexist comments....always blaming fathers....never
mentioning visitation.  (I have another quote from a speech he made
in Cleveland at home mentioning Draconian measures - a favorite word of
his when talking about enforcement.)
     I am sorry that the President grew up a mommy`s boy, without a
significant father figure, but that does not give him the right to
be sexist.
> 
> >     There is a quid pro quo.  A father that has joint custody and
> >gets to see his children pays child support in full and on time
> >over 90% of the time. 
> >If society is not prepared to enforce a father`s rights to see his
> >children, society has no right to demand one dime of financial 
> >contribution from him.  There is a quid pro quo.
> 
> I won't argue with you there, but you seem a little mixed up regarding
> cause-and-effect relationships.  I'll stand corrected if you can
> show me where Clinton supports prohibitions on father visitations.
He has never mentioned prohibitions on father visitations.  He has
never mentioned visitation and thus clearly is not going to take
measures to enforce it.
> Of course, there are cases where fathers exhibit violence against
> their wife or children, so in those cases visitations must be restricted
> or eliminated alltogether.  (And please don't infer that I suspect
> you to be a violent sort of person.)
Of course there should be exceptions for cause...that`s a given.

David Garrod

P.S. sorry for the long post, but the point I was originally trying
to make was:

There is a pleasure to be derived from having children, seeing them
grow etc.  (Nobody, in their right minds, would choose to spend
$100,000 - $200,000 to raise a child unless there was enjoyment and
pleasure to be derived therefrom.)  This this the quid pro quo in
having children.
However the government ignores the psychological benefit a parent
derives (the pleasure of seeing them grow) and concentrates only
on the monetary aspect.
There is an increasing emphasis on making fathers pay, and yet
not letting them enjoy the rewards of their payment; not enforcing
their visitation rights.