Man who fathered 30 kids says he needs a break—on child support

G

GBAstar

CAGiversary!
Feedback
62 (100%)
He needs a break in something, but it isn't child support. And he had a minimum wage job? Hopefully he's doing something about that.

Condoms suck sure but holy shit man what's this guys problem? And the women?! Ugh...why decide to raise a kid like that?
 
And people wonder where stereotypes come from.

I wonder if he's ever heard of safe sex. Oral and anal that is.
 
what he needed was condoms 21 women ago lol. the only people who make big families work are the duggars and the amish.
 
[quote name='Calipso']And people wonder where stereotypes come from.[/QUOTE]
This is interesting because producing bastards at this level used to be the province of wealthy men and women of "ill-repute" for thousands of years. The racialization of this phenomenon into a black thing is a relatively new invention that probably goes back less than 50 years. Even then, it's still more of a "poor" thing than a "black" thing because we have documents that go back hundreds of years talking about the poor being lazy immoral fornicators that do nothing but leech off society and breed like rats...in Britain no less. Not to mention that poor white communities also have higher rates of children out-of-wedlock with multiple mothers and fathers.

Stereotypes might seem true on the surface, but once take a look under the hood, they tend to be based on bullshit used to oppress somebody.

I wonder if he's ever heard of safe sex. Oral and anal that is.
Click to expand...
This, on the other hand, is hilarious and almost makes up for your racist remark...almost.

edit: Just to make this more relevant to the topic...

I think that this guy needs to get his ass to a fertility clinic because this guy is like the ovary whisperer or something. 21 kids in 14 years is no easy feat. Any couple trying to have kids can tell you that.
 
I blame him but I also blame the women. It does indeed take 2 people to have a child...why are either one of you having unprotected sex....also stop having sex with people you dont really know. How could you not know that the guy at over 20 kids already?

Shitty for everyone all around not just him.
 
b2465_chart8.ashx
b2465_chart9.ashx
b2465_chart5.ashx


Racial Differences in Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing
Out-of-wedlock childbearing varies considerably by race and ethnicity. To understand this, it is important to understand the difference between an out-of-wedlock birth rate and the out-of-wedlock birth share for a particular racial or ethnic group.
The out-of-wedlock birth rate for a particular group equals the total number of out-of-wedlock births to mothers of that group divided by all births to the group in the same year. Thus, if 50 babies were born outside of marriage to Hispanic mothers in a given year and total births to all Hispanic mothers (both married and non-married) in the same year were 100, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for Hispanics would be 50 divided by 100, or 50 percent.
Chart 8 shows the out-of-wedlock birth rates for different racial and ethnic groups in 2008. The out-of-wedlock birth rate for the entire population was 40.6 percent. Among white non-Hispanic women, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 28.6 percent; among Hispanics, it was 52.5 percent; and among blacks, it was 72.3 percent.[11]
By contrast, the out-of-wedlock birth share equals the total number of babies born to non-married mothers of a particular racial or ethnic group divided by the total number of babies born outside of marriage for all racial and ethnic groups. Thus, if 50 babies were born outside of marriage to Hispanic mothers in a given year and total out-of wedlock births to mothers from all racial and ethnic groups were 150, the out-of-wedlock birth share for Hispanics would be 50 divided by 150, or 33.3 percent.
Chart 9 shows the out-of-wedlock birth shares for different racial and ethnic groups.[12] Although black and Hispanic women are more likely to give birth out of wedlock than are white non-Hispanic women because non-Hispanic whites are far more numerous in the overall population, the greatest number (or plurality) of out-of-wedlock births still occurs to that group. Of all non-marital births in the U.S., some 37 percent were to non-Hispanic whites, 31 percent were to Hispanics, and 26 percent were to black non-Hispanic women.[13]
Growth in Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing Among Blacks and Whites. Historically, the black out-of-wedlock childbearing rate has always been somewhat higher than the white rate; however, through much of the 20th century, the rates for both groups were comparatively low. For example, as Chart 10 shows, 2 percent of white children and 14 percent of black children born in 1940 were born out of wedlock.

Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...erica-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty

A very good write up on marriage child poverty and out-of-wedlock births.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='soulvengeance']I thought you were a pretty liberal guy Pliskin.[/QUOTE]

I am
 
[quote name='camoor']Hypothetical: Would it be ok for the govt to offer taking on his child support in exchange for this guy getting a vasectomy?

Also he belongs on this list:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19791_the-6-craziest-people-who-are-overpopulating-world.html[/QUOTE]

He's already on it, #5.

I just hate all the taxpayer money being wasted on all the children going to school, since they will clearly not reap the benefits.

I still feel that parents with more than 3 children should have to pay for school and other normally government paid costs out of pocket. Public school, on average, costs about ~10k a year, so this guy's kids are costing taxpayers 300k a year. Good to know my tax dollars are going to a useless cause.

Source: http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf
 
[quote name='JasonTerminator']He's already on it, #5.

I just hate all the taxpayer money being wasted on all the children going to school, since they will clearly not reap the benefits.

I still feel that parents with more than 3 children should have to pay for school and other normally government paid costs out of pocket. Public school, on average, costs about ~10k a year, so this guy's kids are costing taxpayers 300k a year. Good to know my tax dollars are going to a useless cause.

Source: http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf[/QUOTE]
I really hate it when people source reports that they've never read to back up their opinions. It's especially annoying when they cite outlandish numbers...kinda like the way you did.

Tennessee ranks 48th in spending per pupil at $7,113. With 21 kids, that's $149,373. Out of a total of $7,587,598 in revenue, $805,633(24.1%) was in federal funding. If 56% of the population is paying federal income tax, then you would be dividing $805,633 by 169,000,000 people, which comes out to $0.0047 per taxpayer per child per yer. At 21 kids, that adds up to $0.10 and that would be assuming we had a flat tax and not marginal rates, so in reality, you'd probably be paying less than $0.05 a year when all the kids are in school, which is highly unlikely to be that high because with a 14 year split, some kids will be exiting the system as other kids will be entering it. This is also assuming that they even live in a school district that gets the average funding per student. Chances are that they don't.

While you may think they won't reap the benefits, some literacy is better than none and we shouldn't be condemning kids that had no choice in their birth to a life of poverty. Even beyond that, they'd cost more to take care of as adults than as children, so it doesn't make a lick of sense to not try and make sure they have the tools to be contributing citizens instead of poor desperate people that turn to crime.

But it's nice to know that you'd rather tell them to get fucked than to kick in a nickel a year because they're "a useless cause."
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']I thought you were a pretty liberal guy Pliskin.[/QUOTE]

I guess I am not as much as I used to be. I believe in the family unit (two parents in the home) even though my family sucked ass and many do. Personal responsibility is up there if you are going to pull down your pants then you'd better be ready to take responsibility. I have no problem with single parents and divorce (why stay together if it is destructive negative that hurts kids too) but I really still think that a family unit is better (in most cases) and if you are going to have kids then you should plan ahead and I really think that this isn't taught enough.

Now I don't have a problem with gay marriage. But I guess with my older age now I do have a problem with illegal drugs and legal ones that aren't being taken as prescribed, with responsibly or are being abused. I am alright with abortion. I am alright with religion as long as it's not in my face and not hurting others.

I don't know things aren't always as easy as liberal / conservative.
Circumstances are different and so are people. Things get complicated and simple hard and fast rules don't always apply. My views have changed on different things throughout life as I change. I don't have many beliefs as many beliefs tend to limit I do have theories ideas etc but am open to change and new ones.

I don't know...my opinion differs widely on many things.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I really hate it when people source reports that they've never read to back up their opinions. It's especially annoying when they cite outlandish numbers...kinda like the way you did.

Tennessee ranks 48th in spending per pupil at $7,113. With 21 kids, that's $149,373. Out of a total of $7,587,598 in revenue, $805,633(24.1%) was in federal funding. If 56% of the population is paying federal income tax, then you would be dividing $805,633 by 169,000,000 people, which comes out to $0.0047 per taxpayer per child per yer. At 21 kids, that adds up to $0.10 and that would be assuming we had a flat tax and not marginal rates, so in reality, you'd probably be paying less than $0.05 a year when all the kids are in school, which is highly unlikely to be that high because with a 14 year split, some kids will be exiting the system as other kids will be entering it. This is also assuming that they even live in a school district that gets the average funding per student. Chances are that they don't.

While you may think they won't reap the benefits, some literacy is better than none and we shouldn't be condemning kids that had no choice in their birth to a life of poverty. Even beyond that, they'd cost more to take care of as adults than as children, so it doesn't make a lick of sense to not try and make sure they have the tools to be contributing citizens instead of poor desperate people that turn to crime.

But it's nice to know that you'd rather tell them to get fucked than to kick in a nickel a year because they're "a useless cause."[/QUOTE]

Dude has 30 kids, so the number using Tennessee's budget would be $213390. And I used the national average for my 300k number (Which would admittedly really be $289980.).

I'm more implying that we should restrict the number of children people can have unless they can pay for them. I suppose I should have been more clear.
 
Speaking of shitty reports...

[quote name='Pliskin101']Racial Differences in Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing
Out-of-wedlock childbearing varies considerably by race and ethnicity. To understand this, it is important to understand the difference between an out-of-wedlock birth rate and the out-of-wedlock birth share for a particular racial or ethnic group.
The out-of-wedlock birth rate for a particular group equals the total number of out-of-wedlock births to mothers of that group divided by all births to the group in the same year. Thus, if 50 babies were born outside of marriage to Hispanic mothers in a given year and total births to all Hispanic mothers (both married and non-married) in the same year were 100, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for Hispanics would be 50 divided by 100, or 50 percent.
Chart 8 shows the out-of-wedlock birth rates for different racial and ethnic groups in 2008. The out-of-wedlock birth rate for the entire population was 40.6 percent. Among white non-Hispanic women, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 28.6 percent; among Hispanics, it was 52.5 percent; and among blacks, it was 72.3 percent.[11]
By contrast, the out-of-wedlock birth share equals the total number of babies born to non-married mothers of a particular racial or ethnic group divided by the total number of babies born outside of marriage for all racial and ethnic groups. Thus, if 50 babies were born outside of marriage to Hispanic mothers in a given year and total out-of wedlock births to mothers from all racial and ethnic groups were 150, the out-of-wedlock birth share for Hispanics would be 50 divided by 150, or 33.3 percent.
Chart 9 shows the out-of-wedlock birth shares for different racial and ethnic groups.[12] Although black and Hispanic women are more likely to give birth out of wedlock than are white non-Hispanic women because non-Hispanic whites are far more numerous in the overall population, the greatest number (or plurality) of out-of-wedlock births still occurs to that group. Of all non-marital births in the U.S., some 37 percent were to non-Hispanic whites, 31 percent were to Hispanics, and 26 percent were to black non-Hispanic women.[13]
Growth in Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing Among Blacks and Whites. Historically, the black out-of-wedlock childbearing rate has always been somewhat higher than the white rate; however, through much of the 20th century, the rates for both groups were comparatively low. For example, as Chart 10 shows, 2 percent of white children and 14 percent of black children born in 1940 were born out of wedlock.

Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty


http://www.heritage.org/research/re...erica-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty

A very good write up on marriage poverty and out-of-wedlock births.[/QUOTE]
This is a horrible write up on poverty and out-of-wedlock births. The thesis that marriage will reduce childhood poverty is so mind-numbingly stupid and shallow that I can't imagine anyone not being embarrassed by saying it, muchless promoting it especially when the "research" doesn't even account for economic status, which happens to be the largest factor to begin with.
 
b2465_chart6.ashx
b2465_chart7.ashx

Unwed Childbearing, Single Parenthood, and Child Poverty
The rise in out-of-wedlock childbearing and the increase in single parenthood are major causes of high levels of child poverty. Since the early 1960s, single-parent families have roughly tripled as a share of all families with children. As noted, in the U.S. in 2008, single parents were six times more likely to be poor than were married couples.
Not surprisingly, single-parent families make up the overwhelming majority of all poor families with children in the U.S. Overall, single-parent families comprise one-third of all families with children, but as Chart 6 shows, 71 percent of poor families with children are headed by single parents. By contrast, 74 percent of all non-poor families with children are headed by married couples.[8]
Both Marriage and Education Reduce Poverty
The poverty rate among married couples is dramatically lower than the poverty rate among single-headed households, even when the married couple is compared to single parents with the same level of education. For example, as Chart 7 shows, the poverty rate for a single mother with only a high school degree is 31.7 percent, but the poverty rate for a married-couple family headed by an individual who is only a high school graduate is 5.6 percent: Marriage drops the odds of being poor by 80 percent.[9]
Being married has roughly the same effect in reducing poverty that adding five to six years to a parent’s education has. Interestingly, on average, high school dropouts who are married have a far lower poverty rate than do single parents with one or two years of college.
Welfare Costs of Single-Parent Families
The federal government operates over 70 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and targeted social services to poor and low-income persons.[10] In fiscal year 2010, federal and state governments spent over $400 billion on means-tested welfare for low-income families with children. Roughly three-quarters of this welfare assistance, or $300 billion, went to single-parent families. Most non-marital births are currently paid for by the taxpayers through the Medicaid system, and a wide variety of welfare assistance will continue to be given to the mother and child for nearly two decades after the child is born.


Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty


http://www.heritage.org/research/re...erica-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty
 
Abstract: Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware that its principal cause is the absence of married fathers in the home. Marriage remains America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon, yet it continues to decline. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result. Since marital decline drives up child poverty and welfare dependence, and since the poor aspire to healthy marriage but lack the norms, understanding, and skills to achieve it, it is reasonable for government to take active steps to strengthen marriage. Just as government discourages youth from dropping out of school, it should provide information that will help people to form and maintain healthy marriages and delay childbearing until they are married and economically stable. In particular, clarifying the severe shortcomings of the “child first, marriage later” philosophy to potential parents in lower-income communities should be a priority.
Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware of its principal cause: the absence of married fathers in the home. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2008 was 36.5 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.4 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent.[1] (See Chart 1.)
Some of this difference in poverty is due to the fact that single parents tend to have less education than married couples, but even when married couples are compared to single parents with the same level of education, the married poverty rate will still be more than 75 percent lower. Marriage is a powerful weapon in fighting poverty. In fact, being married has the same effect in reducing poverty that adding five to six years to a parent’s level of education has.[2]

b2465_chart1.ashx


Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...erica-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty
 
[quote name='JasonTerminator']Dude has 30 kids, so the number using Tennessee's budget would be $213390. And I used the national average for my 300k number (Which would admittedly really be $289980.).[/QUOTE]
You're right, it's 30. My mistake...not sure how I got that number. Even then, it's still less than $0.14 for most taxpayers per year.

I'm more implying that we should restrict the number of children people can have unless they can pay for them. I suppose I should have been more clear.
Click to expand...
No, you were plenty clear with what you were saying in your initial post. It's still abhorrent no matter how you put it. edit: Forced abortions and sterilizations is the only way it could be enforced.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Speaking of shitty reports...


This is a horrible write up on poverty and out-of-wedlock births. The thesis that marriage will reduce childhood poverty is so mind-numbingly stupid and shallow that I can't imagine anyone not being embarrassed by saying it, muchless promoting it especially when the "research" doesn't even account for economic status, which happens to be the largest factor to begin with.[/QUOTE]

Nah you should be embarassed by posting this garbage. BTW DOPE it is CHILD POVERTY IN AMERICA not POVERTY. That is okay I know I am dealing with someone that can't acknowledge cartel violence and the use of illegal drugs directly contributing to that. How on earth would you understand anything about this? I'll give you that you never cease to amaze me on how stupid you really can be.
 
Oh jeebus, you have the same goddamn things posted multiple times on the same page without any context from you beyond a bigger font and different colors.

Lemme make it easy for you to understand. You know how there's this saying, "It's not the dress that makes you look fat; it's the fat that makes you look fat."

Now let's apply this to how poverty works: It's not having a kid out of wedlock that puts you in poverty, it's the poverty that puts you in poverty.

You dig?

edit:
[quote name='Pliskin101']Nah you should be embarassed by posting this garbage. BTW DOPE it is CHILD POVERTY IN AMERICA not POVERTY.[/quote]
If a child is in poverty, is/are the parent/s not in poverty by extension?

That is okay I know I am dealing with someone that can't acknowledge cartel violence and the use of illegal drugs directly contributing to that.
Click to expand...
Where did I not acknowledge it? How is comparing it's similarities NOT acknowledging it?

How on earth would you understand anything about this? I'll give you that you never cease to amaze me on how stupid you really can be.
Click to expand...
Tell me, in your own words, how stupid I can be and what I don't understand. No plagiarizing allowed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NEWS FLASH it is different words and things (LOL) on different posts with context.

NEWS FLASH according to dohdough a two parent household and eduction play no role in reducing CHILD poverty!!

Kids drop out of school have sex like crazy and kids galore and don't worry about those small things like education and a family unit. (just kidding)

 
Last edited:
[quote name='JasonTerminator']He's already on it, #5.

I just hate all the taxpayer money being wasted on all the children going to school, since they will clearly not reap the benefits.

I still feel that parents with more than 3 children should have to pay for school and other normally government paid costs out of pocket. Public school, on average, costs about ~10k a year, so this guy's kids are costing taxpayers 300k a year. Good to know my tax dollars are going to a useless cause.

Source: http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf[/QUOTE]

Thx.

I'm pretty sure every superpower govt wants this. More people = more power.
 
You need a license to drive a car, but you don't need a license to make children.

They should garnish 100% of his wages and if he get quits his job or tries to collect unemployee, they should open his ass and his wallet with a fist of rage.

This is one of the rare moments I support forced sterilization.
 
It's pretty lame to write the kids off as "useless." Growing in up poverty and broken homes makes it tough to get out of that cycle. But plenty do still succeed as long as their mother is keeping them in school and out of trouble etc. Even if they don't end up going to college, if they graduate high school they're much less likely to have gotten (or get) involved in crime etc. and more likely to at least have a blue collar career.

It's not the kid's faults this guy was uber irresponsible and they're stuck in poverty. So it takes a pretty shitty person to write them off as useless and not think society has an obligation to help kids in these types of situations. It's fine to direct ire at this loser, and the women who let him knock them up (assuming there was no rape involved). But the kids are innocent here and society has an obligation to help support them with access to public schools and any assistance the mother needs to keep them fed, sheltered and clothed.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']I mean this guy is a dumbass but what if he saw the error of his ways and wanted to turn his life around? He couldnt...[/QUOTE]

I could see your point if he had one out-of-wedlock kid but this guy has 30.

These kids are going to grow up in a bad environment and the taxpayers of Tenn. are going to foot the bill.

Comparatively this guy is getting off pretty easy.

Dmaul - I think most people agree with your viewpoint but it is irksome when programs to help children are abused by folks like this guy. People like to do the right thing, but they don't like to get taken advantage of.

I don't know what the solution is short of the guy growing the fuck up (which doesn't seem like it's going to happen...)
 
Couldn't this type of incident be made a crime?

Also, is it feasible for the government to keep track of something like the number of children a person has? That way, there could be a preventative measure taken to rein it in before it gets further out of control (6 kids, 10 kids, etc.) This could perhaps be decided by the judicial system case by case – let the parent(s) defend themselves before forcing them to do away with that hobby. I don't know how common it is, though.

We already use capital punishment in response to certain crimes, maybe forced sterilization isn't so far removed from our current system.

This is very weird, though. Must be something wrong with his mind.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Couldn't this type of incident be made a crime?[/QUOTE]

Basically anything could be made a crime.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's pretty lame to write the kids off as "useless." Growing in up poverty and broken homes makes it tough to get out of that cycle. But plenty do still succeed as long as their mother is keeping them in school and out of trouble etc. Even if they don't end up going to college, if they graduate high school they're much less likely to have gotten (or get) involved in crime etc. and more likely to at least have a blue collar career.[/QUOTE]
I think it would be interesting to follow the outcomes of this guy's kids. Maybe send a survey at age 10, 15 and 18. If they follow nationwide graduation rates, about half of them will not graduate high school. http://www.thegrio.com/specials/mak...ack-males-highlight-racial-gap-in-schools.php
 
The government should simply continue to take more and more of his paycheck to redistribute to the mothers of these children.

We've already established here that the amount that the government takes from one's earnings won't make someone stop working for the earnings... so just keep taking more and more until you have enough to take care of all the children. He'll just work more so he can continue his lifestyle.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The government should simply continue to take more and more of his paycheck to redistribute to the mothers of these children.

We've already established here that the amount that the government takes from one's earnings won't make someone stop working for the earnings... so just keep taking more and mor
e until you have enough to take care of all the children. He'll just work more so he can continue his lifestyle.[/QUOTE]

I wish that were true, but it sounds like magical thinking. (in other words you're totally full of shit)
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']NEWS FLASH according to dohdough a two parent household and eduction play no role in reducing CHILD poverty!![/QUOTE]

So you can infer that logical leap by what he says, but you are unable to make the same conclusion in the opposite direction? Like he said, it isn't education and marriage that reduces child poverty, it's that education and marriage have a tendency to reduce poverty and therefore, by extension, child poverty.

You're falling into the "save the children" political foible/gambit. Let the kids just be kids and don't use them as pawns. Let poverty be the issue (and not defined by age) and work on that.

[quote name='soodmeg']meanwhile the women is free to do anything she wants with her extra income. Its basically like winning the lottery[/quote]
Close but no cigar.
That "extra income" probably ends up going to babysitting and food, both of which are removed from the two income household. Then there's the time spent which tends to reduce the woman's chances of education and better paying jobs.

I'm all for father's rights when applicable, but there's another side to that coin where our society has generally deemed a single male incapable of raising a child and thus saddles the woman with the responsibility of the child. Then scorns her for being a single mom regardless of the circumstances.
 
You know what kind of Welfare Queens I hate the most?　　Corporations and especially the Pharmaceutical companies.
Let a Type 1 Diabetic get their meds at cost.　　It's not like they have a choice to stop taking insulin.
 
[quote name='nasum']So you can infer that logical leap by what he says, but you are unable to make the same conclusion in the opposite direction? Like he said, it isn't education and marriage that reduces child poverty, it's that education and marriage have a tendency to reduce poverty and therefore, by extension, child poverty.

You're falling into the "save the children" political foible/gambit. Let the kids just be kids and don't use them as pawns. Let poverty be the issue (and not defined by age) and work on that.


Close but no cigar.
That "extra income" probably ends up going to babysitting and food, both of which are removed from the two income household. Then there's the time spent which tends to reduce the woman's chances of education and better paying jobs.

I'm all for father's rights when applicable, but there's another side to that coin where our society has generally deemed a single male incapable of raising a child and thus saddles the woman with the responsibility of the child. Then scorns her for being a single mom regardless of the circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Just a quick replay. I find it amazing that you are falling for that gambit but yet in your reply to the next person actually make the argument that two parent household would change SOOOO much. I don't have time right now but think about what you said to me then said to the other person and this thread as where we are having this conversation.

You seem confused.

edit: wow my signature is not showing hmmmm...guess I have to just post it
dohdough- "The thesis that marriage will reduce childhood poverty is so mind-numbingly stupid"
 
Last edited:
[quote name='Pliskin101']Just a quick replay. I find it amazing that you are falling for that gambit but yet in your reply to the next person actually make the argument that two parent household would change SOOOO much. I don't have time right now but think about what you said to me then said to the other person and this thread as where we are having this conversation.

You seem confused.
edit: wow my signature is not showing hmmmm...guess I have to just post it
dohdough- "The thesis that marriage will reduce childhood poverty is so mind-numbingly stupid"[/QUOTE]



Thanks Shrike - I gotta figure out how to do that.

Pliskin - I did it as a joke - don't get too defensive ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='nasum']So you can infer that logical leap by what he says, but you are unable to make the same conclusion in the opposite direction? Like he said, it isn't education and marriage that reduces child poverty, it's that education and marriage have a tendency to reduce poverty and therefore, by extension, child poverty.

You're falling into the "save the children" political foible/gambit. Let the kids just be kids and don't use them as pawns. Let poverty be the issue (and not defined by age) and work on that.


Close but no cigar.
That "extra income" probably ends up going to babysitting and food, both of which are removed from the two income household. Then there's the time spent which tends to reduce the woman's chances of education and better paying jobs.

I'm all for father's rights when applicable, but there's another side to that coin where our society has generally deemed a single male incapable of raising a child and thus saddles the woman with the responsibility of the child. Then scorns her for being a single mom regardless of the circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Uh no. The income is supposed to be used for the well being of the child, however, in some cases it is not. I have met several single mothers who openly brag about using the child support for a car payment or alchol or cigarettes.

What they are supposed to do =/= what they do.
 
A few bad apples don't ruin the whole bunch.

There are always going to be mothers abusing child support, welfare etc., that doesn't mean the majority aren't using it to provide for their families.
 
camoor way to show me. I have learned so much about childhood poverty thanks to your childish post.

As I said nasum is confused.

First of all he (DD) edited his post after that reply of mine nasum quoted. Second Look hard at just this part of nasum's statement "Then there's the time spent which tends to reduce the woman's chances of education and better paying jobs."

You see doddough's statement is idiotic and there is no taking that back.

dohdough- "The thesis that marriage will reduce childhood poverty is so mind-numbingly stupid"

edit: saw your edit. :)
 
Last edited:
[quote name='dmaul1114']A few bad apples don't ruin the whole bunch.

There are always going to be mothers abusing child support, welfare etc., that doesn't mean the majority aren't using it to provide for their families.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, there are still a ton of single mothers who realize they made bad choices in life but now want to straighten up and fly right because they have a child. It's hard-wired into human biology.

Compare that to Wall Street - almost noone on Wall Street is there for altruistic reasons. Wall Streeters either want to rule their own empire or get rich and cash out early.

So people have to ask themselves, why do we want to subsidize the elite rich assholes through tax loopholes? Why do we want and cut the bottom out of the safety net because of a few bad apples?
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']camoor way to show me. I have learned so much about childhood poverty thanks to your childish post.

As I said nasum is really confused.

First of all he (DD) edited his post after that reply of mine nasum quoted. Second Look hard at just this part of nasum's statement "Then there's the time spent which tends to reduce the woman's chances of education and better paying jobs."[/quote]
I edited in your post and a reply to it, nothing else. Unlike you, I don't make several edits over the course of several hours and even if I did, I'd add tons more substance as opposed to trying to get a stupid sig to show up on every post. I wish I could say I was surprised that you haven't figured it out yet.

You see doddough's statement is idiotic and there is no taking that back.

dohdough- "The thesis that marriage will reduce childhood poverty is so mind-numbingly stupid"

edit: saw your edit. :)
Click to expand...
If you were an honest person, you'd put the whole sentence and not leave out the rest of it.

Just saying:roll:
 
[quote name='Spokker']I think it would be interesting to follow the outcomes of this guy's kids. Maybe send a survey at age 10, 15 and 18. If they follow nationwide graduation rates, about half of them will not graduate high school. http://www.thegrio.com/specials/mak...ack-males-highlight-racial-gap-in-schools.php[/QUOTE]
Did you read the article? I'm guessing that you only wanted to "source" a statistic because the article is about black males and not black people. Not to mention that it goes into reasons as to why there are poor graduation rates as well as recommendations to help with it.

edit: What I really want to know is whether or not you agree with the suggestions.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
If you were an honest person, you'd put the whole sentence and not leave out the rest of it.
[/QUOTE]

Oh give me a break you never quote anything in whole you are like cnn, fox or NBC. You cut it up and leave out parts all the time. A bit of the pot calling the kettle black wouldn't you say?

Anyway that post is gone as camoor deleted his post so after I deleted mine that you quoted as it was no longer needed or appropriate. If you want to get rid of yours I will follow with this part of mine.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='Pliskin101']Anyway that post is gone as camoor deleted his post so after I deleted mine that you quoted as it was no longer needed or appropriate. If you want to get rid of yours I will follow with this part of mine.[/QUOTE]

FWIW I didn't delete my post - I'm guessing that either someone reported it or a mod decided to delete it. I thought you were pulling our chain - that's why I posted the image (I thought you'd get a kick out of it)

I didn't realize you were serious.

So um yeah, dohdough's making perfect sense on this one. Are we done here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top