Man has 25 kids, wanted in 2 states for back support

[Hayabusa Rider]

Can you find me a single woman who has ever been pregnant who would agree with you on this?

Several years ago our then governor caused $175 million dollars to go to Medicaid households with school age children. I was working in the inner city the day the funds were released, supposedly for school supplies and clothes. Well there were no stipulations or constraints and cigarettes, alcohols, electronics including HDTVs flew off the shelves. Overheard by myself and others were two women talking and one had two children. Not enough for anything big. The other had eight, yes eight, kids and she got in on a great deal on a spiffy TV. So how did that conversation go? The one with the larger family boasted about having those kids and how they paid off. The other was a bit jealous, but both said quite seriously, that if they hear this is going to happen again they might have another kid.

There, I found you two. If you do a search on NY state and the giveaway you'll learn about it. Oh, know what mostly was not purchased? School supplies and clothes.

Then there was someone I grew up with who I had lost track of and I met her just after she lost a pregnancy. I felt pretty bad for her until she said that it was awful since she was counting on the increase in her check.

Now that's three I personally came across, but there were far more. I grew up in the inner city. I lived among people who had the mentality where it's better to have children and let someone else pay for it. Is that everyone? No, but there is a culture of welfare which comes about by there not being opportunities or motivation or hope, and yes at times laziness. But what choice to they have? None really. Some escape like I did, but for the grace of god go I.

That does not make the situation vanish, nor does it make it right.

 

[brycejones]

Corrected. Not sure it was 15.

Your post makes no sense, though. Moderately intelligent people who aim to have children know who they are having them with.

My argument is:
Before you have a kid with somebody you should know something substantial about them.

Your argument is:
It's okay to have a kid with somebody you've immediately met as long as you've not known them long enough to know they are a dead beat.

The logic you're using actually benefits a woman who knows as little as possible about the semen donor, because in time they'd have figured out he's a dead beat. Mine benefits the woman who waits, because they'd figure it out before having the kid, so in contrast to your conclusion I think your premise is retarded.

You're as dense as the OP but that's ok. We are good with idiotic posts in P&N keeps it interesting.

 

[Smoblikat]

Further to a comment on the dailymail, the proper thing to do here is seize all his wealth and disburse evenly. I would then recommend he has an ankle bracelet and put on probation indefinitely with essentially all his left over money from his club going to these women. He can live in a one bedroom apartment until he's all caught up. for eternity while the women who willingly let him have unprotected sex with them steal his money.

Fixed it to reflect the perfect liberal outcome.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Several years ago our then governor caused $175 million dollars to go to Medicaid households with school age children. I was working in the inner city the day the funds were released, supposedly for school supplies and clothes. Well there were no stipulations or constraints and cigarettes, alcohols, electronics including HDTVs flew off the shelves. Overheard by myself and others were two women talking and one had two children. Not enough for anything big. The other had eight, yes eight, kids and she got in on a great deal on a spiffy TV. So how did that conversation go? The one with the larger family boasted about having those kids and how they paid off. The other was a bit jealous, but both said quite seriously, that if they hear this is going to happen again they might have another kid.

That's not what you said. You said "Since there are no consequences for pregnancy there are no disincentives." What you found is women who were willing to go through the consequences of having children for a specific financial incentive. Is that a good justification for having kids? Most people would agree that it is not. But nothing about that suggests that the women thought the kids came consequence-free. Even after they get the money, they're still left raising a child, not to mention the nine month gestation and rending of loins associated with having the kid in the first place.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's not what you said. You said "Since there are no consequences for pregnancy there are no disincentives." What you found is women who were willing to go through the consequences of having children for a specific financial incentive. Is that a good justification for having kids? Most people would agree that it is not. But nothing about that suggests that the women thought the kids came consequence-free. Even after they get the money, they're still left raising a child, not to mention the nine month gestation and rending of loins associated with having the kid in the first place.

I'll clarify for you. There are some people for whom pregnancy is not a disincentive, in fact the reverse.

Person #4.
A very nice young woman who was a single mother and working her ass off trying to provide. She got medical assistance and considering her income and the fact she was doing her best to be responsible I thought that was a good thing. Well not everyone looked at it that way. She and I had a pretty good working relationship and there were times when she confided to me that she was pretty stressed out because of the pressure her mother was putting on her to be more like her sister. You might think "oh the sister is probably some financial success". No, her sister never held a job but she did have kids that the mom could spoil and she got all over my coworker because she was being stupid. She should have a big family (they do really like kids so it's not just a cash cow) and let the state take care of them. So someone responsible is having family and cultural pressure to be just the opposite. If you grew up where I did and work where I have you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. Know who's the most pissed off about the whole thing? Whose who also are disadvantaged but have no real opportunity watching others do at least as well and pretty much laughing at them for trying.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I'll clarify for you. There are some people for whom pregnancy is not a disincentive, in fact the reverse.

Person #4.
A very nice young woman who was a single mother and working her ass off trying to provide. She got medical assistance and considering her income and the fact she was doing her best to be responsible I thought that was a good thing. Well not everyone looked at it that way. She and I had a pretty good working relationship and there were times when she confided to me that she was pretty stressed out because of the pressure her mother was putting on her to be more like her sister. You might think "oh the sister is probably some financial success". No, her sister never held a job but she did have kids that the mom could spoil and she got all over my coworker because she was being stupid. She should have a big family (they do really like kids so it's not just a cash cow) and let the state take care of them. So someone responsible is having family and cultural pressure to be just the opposite. If you grew up where I did and work where I have you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. Know who's the most pissed off about the whole thing? Whose who also are disadvantaged but have no real opportunity watching others do at least as well and pretty much laughing at them for trying.

You seem to have completely missed my point. All of this strongly points to women who are willing to go through any consequences associated with pregnancy for the incentive of financial gain. That does not mean that pregnancy comes with no consequences. I am specifically objecting to your claim that "there are no consequences for pregnancy." Ignore the incentives. Do you actually think that there's been a single pregnancy in the history of time that has had no consequences? A nine month gestational period that comes with weight gain, the hips shifting in the pelvis, morning sickness, an aversion to formerly-palatable foods, an expectation of refraining from all drugs or alcohol, fatigue, general discomfort, labor pains and a baby either stretching through the vagina or being literally cut out of the uterus. Those are all consequences, and that's for even the most benign of pregnancies. Just because someone decides the incentives outweigh the consequences doesn't mean the consequences disappear.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You seem to have completely missed my point. All of this strongly points to women who are willing to go through any consequences associated with pregnancy for the incentive of financial gain. That does not mean that pregnancy comes with no consequences. I am specifically objecting to your claim that "there are no consequences for pregnancy." Ignore the incentives. Do you actually think that there's been a single pregnancy in the history of time that has had no consequences? A nine month gestational period that comes with weight gain, the hips shifting in the pelvis, morning sickness, an aversion to formerly-palatable foods, an expectation of refraining from all drugs or alcohol, fatigue, general discomfort, labor pains and a baby either stretching through the vagina or being literally cut out of the uterus. Those are all consequences, and that's for even the most benign of pregnancies. Just because someone decides the incentives outweigh the consequences doesn't mean the consequences disappear.

I should think that context would be understood. Would you like me to change what I said? Ok. When the equation is formulated there are women who for whatever reason see the risk of pregnancy and potential adverse events as being insufficient grounds to reject the perceived financial reward resulting in a determination in favor of monetary compensation being the winning concern.

In essence it pays for them, from their perspective, to take the risk and consequently act to take advantage of the system for a variety of reasons, not all entirely due to nefarious intent.

That better?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I should think that context would be understood. Would you like me to change what I said? Ok. When the equation is formulated there are women who for whatever reason see the risk of pregnancy and potential adverse events as being insufficient grounds to reject the perceived financial reward resulting in a determination in favor of monetary compensation being the winning concern.

In essence it pays for them, from their perspective, to take the risk and consequently act to take advantage of the system for a variety of reasons, not all entirely due to nefarious intent.

That better?

Yes, that I can agree with, although I would also posit that that represents a very small percentage of women who get pregnant, even among those whose income status would qualify them for government assistance. You can find people with questionable morality attempting to take advantage of a situation in all walks of life for every conceivable thing; I think it's disingenuous to claim that the greed of human nature is a valid reason to discontinue programs to help people who are legitimately in need. Unfortunately, this is what happens when people bring up "welfare queens" and the like, as though a handful of anecdotal examples should be enough to convince us to not give money to ANY mother raising a child in poverty.

 

[poopaskoopa]

"Expensive cars"? That's a Dodge Charger behind him....

 

[MrPickins]

Only TexasHiker could turn this around and blame the women for the man not paying his child support.

 

[Dannar26]

Guy sounds like a douche.

That being said, the equation is set strongly in favor of the woman when it comes to anything domestic relations oriented. That simple injustice will continue to color peoples responses until the laws are updated for fairness.

 

[doubledeluxe]

These people are all idiots.

 

[LegendKiller]

"Expensive cars"? That's a Dodge Charger behind him....

What's the cheapest dodge charger? $26k? That's pretty expensive for people who don't have much money.

 

[compuwiz1]

I wonder what the odds are for getting pregnant when one does not have birth control or a condom on? It took three years of trying for us to have our daughter. This mo-fo has had a whole lot of sex, IMO. For that alone he should have to pay some kind of luxury tax! Off with his crank!

 

[LegendKiller]

I wonder what the odds are for getting pregnant when one does not have birth control or a condom on? It took three years of trying for us to have our daughter. This mo-fo has had a whole lot of sex, IMO. For that alone he should have to pay some kind of luxury tax! Off with his crank!

What should happen is that he goes to prison and works on a chain gang, paying anything he gets to his baby mommas. But first he should be sterilized.

 

[Pulsar]

Nevermind the price of a condom which is also not an issue either. No this has more to do with someone just does not "GIVE A PHUCK".

He's given lots of phucks. That's the problem.

 

[TheSiege]

Shouldn't the women be held to the same level of responsibility?

They are, child support is based off of both parents income.

 

[JTsyo]

Don't pay child support then snip snip. Though all the bogus cases you hear of men having to pay child support argues against it.

 

[1prophet]

Yes, that I can agree with, although I would also posit that that represents a very small percentage of women who get pregnant, even among those whose income status would qualify them for government assistance. You can find people with questionable morality attempting to take advantage of a situation in all walks of life for every conceivable thing; I think it's disingenuous to claim that the greed of human nature is a valid reason to discontinue programs to help people who are legitimately in need. Unfortunately, this is what happens when people bring up "welfare queens" and the like, as though a handful of anecdotal examples should be enough to convince us to not give money to ANY mother raising a child in poverty.

The problem is more and more of those costs are being pushed down to the struggling middle class not just money wise but the societal problems, while the real rich can escape all that or worse yet profit from it like JP Morgan who issues the ebt cards.

How about putting some of these welfare families right inside of these "not my problem" affluent neighborhoods and have their kids go to the same better schools like the rich kids do, too bad it's not just conservatives that would balk but alot of limousine liberals as shown here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/u...attle-with-neighbors.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But after spending years and millions of dollars, Mr. Lucas abruptly canceled plans recently for the third, and most likely last, major expansion, citing community opposition. An emotional statement posted online said Lucasfilm would build instead in a place “that sees us as a creative asset, not as an evil empire.”
If the announcement took Marin by surprise, it was nothing compared with what came next. Mr. Lucas said he would sell the land to a developer to bring “low income housing” here.
“It’s inciting class warfare,” said Carolyn Lenert, head of the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents.
Mr. Lucas said in an e-mail that he only wanted “to do something good for Marin,” waving away accusations of ulterior motives.



“I’ve been surprised to see some people characterize this as vindictive,” he said, adding that there was a “real need” for affordable housing here. “I wouldn’t waste my time or money just to try and upset the neighbors.”



Whatever Mr. Lucas’s intentions, his announcement has unsettled a county whose famously liberal politics often sits uncomfortably with the issue of low-cost housing and where battles have been fought over such construction before. His proposal has pitted neighbor against neighbor, who, after failed peacemaking efforts over local artisanal cheese and wine, traded accusations in the local newspaper.



The staunchest opponents of Lucasfilm’s expansion are now being accused of driving away the filmmaker and opening the door to a low-income housing development. That has created an atmosphere that one opponent, who asked not to be identified, saying she feared for her safety, described as “sheer terror” and likened to “Syria.”



Carl Fricke, a board member of the Lucas Valley Estates Homeowners Association, which represents houses nearest to the Lucas property, said: “We got letters saying, ‘You guys are going to get what you deserve. You’re going to bring drug dealers, all this crime and lowlife in here.’ ”

and that is what most affluent liberals are like when they have to eat at the same table they like to force everyone else to eat at.:whiste:

 

[Texashiker]

Don't pay child support then snip snip.

Same should go for women.

Don't want to get a job and support your kids, snip snip.

They are, child support is based off of both parents income.

That is so stupid I do not have a reply.

Did you fall off the train to Stupidville and hit your head just before you posted that?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm surprise that the OP didn't find this man to be a hero, after all he fathered several children, chose not to pay child support, and showed the man.

 

[Texashiker]

I'm surprise that the OP didn't find this man to be a hero, after all he fathered several children, chose not to pay child support, and showed the man.

Bull crap.

Both parents have a responsibility to provide for their children.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The women should be your hero too, they are refusing to pay to support their children, and sticking it to the man as well

 

[The Merg]

Someone has to pay,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

skip to the 50 second mark.

Someone, anyone but the mother, needs to be accountable for kids.

Wow. Just wow.

- Merg

 

[MrPickins]

Bull crap.

Both parents have a responsibility to provide for their children.

Do you have any information showing that the women in this story aren't doing their part to provide for this guy's kids?