Talk:Bradley Amendment

message: Has anyone looked into the how much political support if any Bradley garnered from this bill?  Has he commented on special cases - coma cases, etc?  Has he ever been extremely poor?  In other words, is he able to empathize with the plight of a poor father whose wife decided she perhaps could do better and whose job was outsourced to India or Mexico, for example?
I think that answers to these kinds of questions would improve the article.
24.206.125.213 10:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political capital

message: Article listed on WP:VFD Aug 25 to Sep 21 2004, consensus was to keep following reqrites.  Discussion:
Nothing much but POV, and very whiny POV at that. KeithTyler
Rossami pulled it off. I rescind nomination to VFD and change vote to Keep in its new form. - KeithTyler 05:22, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
*It could be worth having an article on this. Has it been on cleanup?—Rory ☺ 19:27, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
**Vote delete; this is always going to be contentious in this incarnation.—Rory ☺ 13:17, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
**Keep. Much better now. Good job. —Rory ☺ 10:53, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
* Real law. Real social problem that has been independently discussed.  Unwikified and POV first draft, but that's cause for Clean-up, not deletion. Keep. Might need renaming because essentially every amendment proposed by Senator Bradley gets called the "Bradley Amendment".  Rossami 22:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for deletion archived debate

message: In a recent edit, this text was added challenging the HHS statistics on arrearages.  Unfortunately, I can't figure out the intended meaning of the edit in the context of the article.  Maybe I'm just getting confused by the grammar.  I'm pulling the comment to the Talk page until we can figure it out.  Any help would be appreciated.  Rossami (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the above statistics may be misleading because child support cases are typically closed after four years of inactivity. Closed or not, the Bradley Amendment makes all arrearages final judgements, greatly simplifying collections.
HHS statistics are  Very  deceptive, because cases are typically closed after four years of inactivity.
Automatically making past-due child-support a Final_Judgement
is how the Bradley_Amendment facilitates collection.
Collection is it's raison d'etre.
I don't know why I didn't make this clearer before, but it's obvious that I'm not the only one confused by all this.
If you reject my wording or dispute my assertions, please feel free discuss it here and/or do a better job, keeping in mind the vital nature of this information. --Jeff Relf 19:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not disputing your assertion.  I just don't understand it.  How does the fact that "cases are typically closed after four years of inactivity" create bias or perception of bias in the HHS statistics?  If there is bias and if that bias is relevant to the topic of this article, then we must explain it clearly enough to be understandable to any future reader/editor.  I still can't make the connection.  Rossami (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The numbers above omit closed cases.  Typically, cases are closed after four years of inactivity. Open or closed, past-due child support is still automatically a final judgement, thus non expiring and easy to collect.
  
--Jeff Relf 15:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenge to statistics

message: Whats happened to the repeal effort since 2004? theres no current information? Or did it fail?
I'm guessing feminist groups are fighting hard behind the scenes to keep that from happening?216.52.163.1 19:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still under repeal effort?

message: The "Controversies" heading lists several "notorious" cases of unintended consequences to the law.  If these cases are so "notorious," then why are no sources cited?  Without specific sources, there's no way to tell if these examples are real or apocryphal.  Captain Bathrobe (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already cited in the section above.  See the comments attributed to McLeod.  Rossami (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some independent verification would be a good idea, don't you think?  (Captain Bathrobe (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Just reviewed McLeod's "testimony."  He provides no evidence of these claims, names no names.  Yet the existence of these cases is being cited as "notorious" cases of unintended consequences.  In fact, McLeod isn't even saying that he has specific examples; he just make vague reference to "endless stories."  If the story are endless, why can't he cite even one.  I say, unless these cases can be substantiated, let's delete the "controversies" heading and keep McLeod's testimony as just that--his testimony.  (Captain Bathrobe (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  When the content was added, it was attributed to his book (The Multiple Scandals of Child Support, I believe), not to his testimony.  To be honest, I would not have expected anything qualifying as encyclopedic sourcing in congressional testimony - the session is just too time-limited.  Any sources backing up the testimony would be in supplemental filings if the congressional audience allowed it at all.  Rossami (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Citations under "Controversies" heading. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bradley Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040824190209/http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/106cong/9-23-99/9-23smit.htm to http://WaysAndMeans.House.GOV/legacy/humres/106cong/9-23-99/9-23smit.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721004819/http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/108h/90270.pdf to http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/108h/90270.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bradley Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/106cong/9-23-99/9-23smit.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120105174524/http://ww2.fairfaxtimes.com/cms/archivestory.php?id=131380 to http://ww2.fairfaxtimes.com/cms/archivestory.php?id=131380
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402170303/http://open.salon.com/blog/scottcobb/2010/12/09/death_penalty_opponents_speak_out_-_clarence_brandley_on_houston_local2 to http://open.salon.com/blog/scottcobb/2010/12/09/death_penalty_opponents_speak_out_-_clarence_brandley_on_houston_local2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified