Author Topic: Man Has 20 kids with 11 Women: You're Paying for Them (Read 2284 times)

lgm270 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 03, 2010, 03:36:32 AM »

Quote from: powderman on March 02, 2010, 04:03:24 PM

IGM. Good post, I agree. POWDERMAN.

Thanks, Powderman.

Some further thoughts on Fatherless boys and criminal polygamy. There are many thousands of criminals being maintained in our jails at taxpayer expense. Jail is, in one sense, a form of social welfare. The financial cost of jail and prisons is staggering, separate and apart from the costs to society and to the victims of the crimes they commit.

Contemplate the fact that most of these guys are sexually active on the outside and that most of them have at least one child on welfare and many have half a dozen children with multiple women all on welfare. No wonder the State of California and most of its urban counties are going broke. The financial cost of this polygamy is just staggering.

I hope no one will respond with some idiocy about how farm subsidies have anything to do with this destructive social phenomenon or are in any way comparable. As I have previously stated, farm subsidies may not be perfect, but subsidized farmers produce food and subsidized polygamists produce fatherless offspring who become drug dealers, armed robbers and murderers. There is no rational basis for comparison.

jdinil · « **Reply #31 on:** March 03, 2010, 03:42:41 AM »

Please keep in mind, as you read his posts, that Dee is a pretty dim bulb. The trucking industry is not subsidized??? They are. It's called the Interstate Highway System. I'm sure the railroads would love having their "roads" built, maintained, and paid for by the government, like the trucking companies do! The trucker's will say "well, we pay big license fees and motor fuel taxes". But, what they pay is a drop in the bucket compared to the road damage and maintenance costs they cause. Let alone the costs of building the roads to begin with.

wareagleguy · « **Reply #32 on:** March 03, 2010, 06:32:43 AM »

Dee,
I have several family members that are poultry farmers also. Most CAN NOT MAKE IT ON FARMING. Best example is my cousin that have two girls in high school. His only means of income is poultry farming. His income is so low his girls get free lunches in school!!!! He is the only one I know that only farms. I make my living as an IT Engineer full time.

Also, I am not talking about "small" farms here. Mine and all that I know are close to 1 $million dollar farms. With debt of almost $700,000 I cleared less than $22,000 last year. No government help. NOTHING.

Dee · « **Reply #33 on:** March 03, 2010, 07:51:05 AM »

Quote from: wareagleguy on March 03, 2010, 06:32:43 AM

Dee,
I have several family members that are poultry farmers also. Most CAN NOT MAKE IT ON FARMING. Best example is my cousin that have two girls in high school. His only means of income is poultry farming. His income is so low his girls get free lunches in school!!!! He is the only one I know that only farms. I make my living as an IT Engineer full time.

Also, I am not talking about "small" farms here. Mine and all that I know are close to 1 $million dollar farms. With debt of almost $700,000 I cleared less than $22,000 last year. No government help. NOTHING.

Sounds like what you guys are doing is working. I'd say get another jog, and forget the farming. That's what many in my family did.

Dee · « **Reply #34 on:** March 03, 2010, 07:54:47 AM »

Quote from: jdinil on March 03, 2010, 03:42:41 AM

Please keep in mind, as you read his posts, that Dee is a pretty dim bulb. The trucking industry is not subsidized??? They are. It's called the Interstate Highway System. I'm sure the railroads would love having their "roads" built, maintained, and paid for by the government, like the trucking companies do! The trucker's will say "well, we pay big license fees and motor fuel taxes". But, what they pay is a drop in the bucket compared to the road damage and maintenance costs they cause. Let alone the costs of building the roads to begin with.

Talking about uninformed. jdnil, I paid fuel taxes in states where I didn't buy fuel, for the road maintenace. I also paid heavy road use taxes for the use of them ON EACH TRUCK. I paid more fuel and road taxes in a year on ONE TRUCK than you'll pay in 20 years on all your cars. Every truck out there is paying for the rights to use the system in various tax forms. You need to research some. Your showing you ignorance.

gypsyman · « **Reply #35 on:** March 03, 2010, 10:36:52 AM »

I'm going to show my communist side here. I think that anyone is entitled to a mistake. Once. Maybe even twice. But, that's it!Anybody, on the govt. dole, with more than 2 kids, no support, single parent, gets fixed. Sterilized. Nutered. What ever you want to call it. If a woman has 2 kids,not married or any kind of support, fix her. And, before she gets a full check, she has to give up the name of the man that knocked her up. He gets fixed too. Harsh language, probably. If they breed like animals, treat them as such. This country is going in the crapper, and we're about to end like South Africa. Probably to late any how. gypsyman

alsaqr · « **Reply #36 on:** March 03, 2010, 12:16:57 PM »

Quote

Please keep in mind, as you read his posts, that Dee is a pretty dim bulb. The trucking industry is not subsidized??? They are. It's called the Interstate Highway System.

Surprise, you are the dim bulb here.

Truckers pay several different kind of taxes, including:

1. Federal Highway Use Tax (Form 2290)
2. Fuel Taxes
3. Highway Use (Mileage) Taxes in four states

http://www.permitsplus.com/roadTaxes.php

jdinil · « **Reply #37 on:** March 03, 2010, 01:47:25 PM »

I own 2 heavy trucks and 1 medium duty. They are a necessary evil to my business. I know EXACTLY what the costs are. The FACT remains that no way in hell does a heavy truck come close to paying for the damage that they cause to the roadways. Truckers are subsidized to a far greater degree than a farmer is! I wish I had nearly free, government provided, land to run my farm equipment over. Just like the truckers who basically get free highways to run their business on. And Dee came back with the very excuse I said he would!

powderman · « **Reply #38 on:** March 03, 2010, 01:50:39 PM »

What if farmers cropped every bit of land they have??? Thered be no wildlife to hunt, no cover, no nothing. POWDERMAN.

wareagleguy · « **Reply #39 on:** March 03, 2010, 01:53:38 PM »

But Dee!!!

You said we farmers were getting filthy rich! What gives? If all the farmers were getting rich then why did your family quit?

As for why do and no money?
Many people will tell you that being poor and working for one's self is MUCH better than being poor and working for The Man.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #40 on:** March 03, 2010, 02:02:00 PM »

I guess that I would rather give money to a farmer, who is producing the raw material that a huge percentage og the worlds economy is based on. than welfare mothers who produce absolutly nothing. Agricuture and minerals are the building blocks of everything we have in the world. Wouldn't be any trucks without iron and oil and they wouldn't have much to haul without agriculture. What America needs to get the economy going is more mining and farming.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #41 on:** March 04, 2010, 08:08:51 AM »

11 women

Ditchdigger · « **Reply #42 on:** March 04, 2010, 02:04:05 PM »

Dee,I don't know if it was true or not,but I've heard over the yr's about J.B. Hunt trucking co. and a few others that got subsidys for a few yrs. I think that UPS,and Swift were in that catagory also. I know that Swift is hauling some loads back from the east for .60 a mile. Digger

Dee · « **Reply #43 on:** March 04, 2010, 02:26:43 PM »

Quote from: Ditchdigger on March 04, 2010, 02:04:05 PM

Dee,I don't know if it was true or not,but I've heard over the yr's about J.B. Hunt trucking co. and a few others that got subsidys for a few yrs. I think that UPS,and Swift were in that catagory also. I know that Swift is hauling some loads back from the east for .60 a mile. Digger

Haven't heard that one Ditchdigger. If they are, it isn't right, it is nothing more than welfare. J.B.Hunt,and Swift I do know are using a lot of rail, and it may be government CONTRACTING, and some trucking companies have recently gone bankrupt. I guess those didn't get a government check.

This topic also, has reached a point of folks trying to put out each others small fires. I done with it also. And no Ditchdigger, I am not talking about you. See ya at the next gun show.

MGMorden · « **Reply #44 on:** March 05, 2010, 01:13:52 AM »

I don't really have TOO much of an opinion either way, but it always baffles me that people opposed to government healthcare would support farming subsidies.

Most on the healthcare debate usually state that the market (capitalism) will decide. Farming is indeed important - everybody's got to eat. In that case though, wouldn't the market support the farmers as needed? Without government subsidies they might have to charge a bit more, but the increased spending ability afforded us through the reduced taxes should give us the extra income needed there. Certainly the farmers aren't going to go out of business while producing a commodity in such demand as food.

Too important to leave it to the market you say? That's the same reason given by people advocating national healthcare. Why is it ok to let the government subsidize your food production but not your medical care?

It seems that people would have a consistent position on the two of them. For or against, it's really the same issue.

Squib · « **Reply #45 on:** March 06, 2010, 05:20:43 PM »

quick two cents (and two points)

blacks only account for about 12% of the US population (an eighth almost)

ALL welfare recipients should probably be set on fire, irregardless of race, if they're having kids and not having jobs (urban ghettos or trailerparks, all colors).

teamnelson · « **Reply #46 on:** March 06, 2010, 06:52:41 PM »

Heard a liberation theologian, social gospel type (well known, well paid, author of countless books and probably well liked by many here) at a conference this weekend tell us all that world poverty is our (Christian America) fault.

He said our farming subsidies made it cheaper to export food to countries to the point that their own farming industries have failed. Can't argue with that observation, but his solution? Subsidize them, raise taxes to send to those countries. Called it fair trade, not free trade.

He said our efforts to relieve Haiti over the past few decades have undercut their economy. Again, can't argue with that too hard, but his solution? Pull our workers out, but leave the money, and increase it. Subsidize their reconstruction, bankroll only - let them create their own corporations to do the work. Raise taxes to cover.

He said our efforts to take care of the welfare of our own people in the US has been abysmal. Ok, but his solution? Mandated charity, increased taxes ...

Lest anyone imagine that the entire church leadership is in lockstep accord with this ideology, let me say that happily I don't know too many pastors that agree with this person's perspective. Charity in the context of the Christian faith is a by-product of a thankful heart, not an imposed mandate for self-righteousness. When we seek to use the government to do the work of the church, we're no better than Islam.

Squib · « **Reply #47 on:** March 06, 2010, 07:05:56 PM »

charity is opening one's heart and performing good deeds for another, sometimes it's fruitful and sometimes it's inviting trouble and perpetuating the problem

forcing a system of sustainment of the most inept and vile beings our society can produce will ONLY invite more trouble and perpetuate the problem, and that's even IF the system wasn't cheated by those recipients. it's got to stop. (I'm young but from what I've been told and read) back in "the day" kids went to orphanages, the parents didn't get a welfare check. unwanted babies got the same treatment. so parents either had kids to have a family, or got rid of them. systematic reproduction of the lowest citizens wasn't an issue. same for healthcare- people got surgeries and medicine but put it off till it was a life or death issue and that was becasue bankruptcy was sure to follow. now people that have nothing can't lose, and people that DO have something to lose can put if off indefinitely by making tiny payments that will NEVER pay off the debt before they die. human beings ALL DIE, be it cancer, heart disease, stroke, alzheimers.... it's not lack or healthcare, it's not discrimination or lack of concern for the welfare of the less fortunate. it's life, plain and simple. sure, rich people do better, and longevity will always cost a fortune. why can't people accept it? I thinkt that people that accept government aid shouldn't be able to vote. I think it needs to come to that. maybe strip them of their rights like felons if they don't take care of themselves. make them children again. I bet that would stop it all really quick.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #48 on:** March 08, 2010, 01:33:49 AM »

Well lets make work for these people , Lets supply child care . Make sure they can access public transportation . Then if they want to help themselves they can .Don't give mo money for mo children , let them see the cost effect not the tax payers . If they work hard enough maybe they would be to tired to keep producing offspring ?

powderman · « **Reply #49 on:** March 08, 2010, 05:45:00 AM »

Having babies out of wedlock is a way of life for some women, and WE are paying for them. These folks need God in their lives, and the govt out of their lives. Welfare fraud is rampant in America. The moral decline is appalling. Don't want a baby?? Simple, kill it, sorry to say but it's legal. Like Squib said, things have changed. Used to be having a child out of wedlock was shameful, now they brag about it in the newspaper. Billy smith and jane doe are PROUD to announce the birth of their son or daughter, nope, nothing to be proud of. I cringe every time I read that in the paper. A few weeks ago our local paper listed 5 births, only one couple was married. We allowed God to be basically kicked out of our class rooms and courts in 1963, the results are what we see today. POWDERMAN.

teamnelson · « **Reply #50 on:** March 08, 2010, 06:03:17 AM »

Quote from: powderman on March 08, 2010, 05:45:00 AM

We allowed God to be basically kicked out of our class rooms and courts in 1963, the results are what we see today. POWDERMAN.

Amen.

Heather · « **Reply #51 on:** March 08, 2010, 06:16:31 AM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on March 03, 2010, 02:02:00 PM

I guess that I would rather give money to a farmer, who is producing the raw material that a huge percentage og the worlds economy is based on. than welfare mothers who produce absolutly nothing. Agricuture and minerals are the building blocks of everything we have in the world. Wouldn't be any trucks without iron and oil and they wouldn't have much to haul without agriculture. What America needs to get the economy going is more mining and farming.

Ya know the funny thing about farm subsidizes is that some of the money goes to pay farmers to not produce crops. Sounds dumb...well they use the reason of balancing price and supply. Well think about this for a sec. If all of the farmers planted as much as they could then the price of food would drop..bigger supply than demand. Price always goes down. Well the farmers won't make as much money...the good ones will and the bad ones can get another job. It kills me when people think it is OK for the government to "help" We are paying outrageous prices for food while people are getting paid to NOT GROW FOOD! I say get the government out of private industry..including banks, the auto industry, and yes I am even heartless enough to say stop giving the poor little farmers money!

Think about it people. Either you believe in the constitution or you don't! "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I see no where in the constitution that says the Federal Government is responsible for controlling the production of goods or has the right to spend OUR TAX DOLLARS bailing out ANYONE who can't make it on their own!!!!!

Heather

Heather · « **Reply #52 on:** March 08, 2010, 06:22:39 AM »

Oh and on topic, the man with 20 kids is scum in my opinion. I understand that the institution of family and strong family values is a notion that is rapidly decaying in this country and this is just another example of this. Call me a cold heartless wench, but I still don't believe it is my Government's responsibility or right to help out these eleven women. There was a time when if you couldn't afford kids you simply didn't have them. I think that if there were consequences for ones actions these days we would see a potential turn for the better. STOP government hand out and entitlement programs, and I bet you would see people being more careful in their decision to start a family. With the government being there to bail you out cradle to grave there is no reason to live a responsible life. Just like with raising kids. If there is no negative consequences for your actions there is no reason to act right.

Heather

alsaqr · « **Reply #53 on:** March 08, 2010, 06:41:59 AM »

Any man who sires 20 kids by 11 women is a scumbag. Bunch of years ago we had an Okie ball player who wanted to be a US congressman. We elected JC Watts to the US congress. Yep, JC claimed to represent something that he called Oklahoma "family values." Then we found out that JC has five out of wedlock kids by three different women. Some fine "family values."

In the February issue of National Geographic magazine is an article about a fine guy who has 46 kids by five wives. The man is a member of FLDS church and he is white. All of his kids were raised on welfare. This man has 239 grand children. The man worships and obeys his pedophile "prophet, Warren Jeffs.

lgm270 · « **Reply #54 on:** March 08, 2010, 07:15:14 AM »

Quote from: alsaqr on March 08, 2010, 06:41:59 AM

Any man who sires 20 kids by 11 women is a scumbag. Bunch of years ago we had an Okie ball player who wanted to be a US congressman. We elected JC Watts to the US congress. Yep, JC claimed to represent something that he called Oklahoma "family values." Then we found out that JC has five out of wedlock kids by three different women. Some fine "family values."

In the February issue of National Geographic magazine is an article about a fine guy who has 46 kids by five wives. The man is a member of FLDS church and he is white. All of his kids were raised on welfare. This man has 239 grand children. The man worships and obeys his pedophile "prophet, Warren Jeffs.

Wow. I always thought there was something strange about JC, even apart from the fact that he sounded like an idiot when he got off the GOP talking points.

Five kids by 3 women? He still falls short of 7 kids by 4 women like Obama Sr.