Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WHIO-TV Dayton)   Dayton man has little remorse after fathering 27 kids. "One thing I would change is different moms"   (whiotv.com) divider line 145
    More: Dumbass, Dayton  
•       •       •

8058 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Sep 2013 at 9:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



145 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-10 10:28:13 PM  

theflatline: I work with a very hot young black woman, 28, who has five kids, she looks like the oldest sister on the fresh prince.  Smoking.

Her old man is in jail right now and she said to me"i know your wife is out of the country for awhile, so I been thinking we could take care of each other, cause I do think about you."

While flattering the offer, I do love my wife, and I am a reformed dirt bag. So I politely turned her down.

I also asked her if she had her tubes tied and she said "no, i might meet the man of my dreams and want to have his baby".


So having babies is a mark of ownership now.

Like a dog pissing on a tree to mark his territory.

And the dumbass women are going along with it.
 
2013-09-10 10:29:48 PM  
www.centerforinquiry.net

Best argument EVAR!
 
2013-09-10 10:30:08 PM  

fickenchucker: Yeah, and forced sterilization is considered wrong.  Chances are this one guy foisted upon this country 27 future baby-mammas/baby-mamma-knocker-uppers.  Not to mention the dozens of other children his 17 baby-mammas probably have from other morans.  Still think welfare is a good thing, everyone?  The 17 cumbuckets would probably think twice about laying down with this walking turd if there was no money in it.


You're mistaken. People who make these choices have absolutely zero concept of the future. They do not plan, they simply live day to day. They are not gaming the system, they're just farking and don't give a shiat about birth control
 
2013-09-10 10:30:19 PM  
I hate my baby mama
I hate my baby mama
I hate I hate I hate I hate
I hate my baby mama
 
2013-09-10 10:30:19 PM  

fickenchucker: Yeah, and forced sterilization is considered wrong.  Chances are this one guy foisted upon this country 27 future baby-mammas/baby-mamma-knocker-uppers.  Not to mention the dozens of other children his 17 baby-mammas probably have from other morans.  Still think welfare is a good thing, everyone?  The 17 cumbuckets would probably think twice about laying down with this walking turd if there was no money in it.


He's doing your country a service.

Can you imagine what America would be like without an underclass? Your little precious snowflake genius son with the engineering degree would have to pump gas and do nights at Denny's because there'd be no poor people to do the work.
 
2013-09-10 10:30:23 PM  
"Full time parent" who USUALLY manages to see one or two of them a day.

Sounds exhausting.
 
2013-09-10 10:33:37 PM  
Man, George Z didn't even make a dent.
 
2013-09-10 10:35:59 PM  
Condoms.....how do they work?
 
2013-09-10 10:37:26 PM  

theflatline: I work with a very hot young black woman, 28, who has five kids, she looks like the oldest sister on the fresh prince.  Smoking.

Her old man is in jail right now and she said to me"i know your wife is out of the country for awhile, so I been thinking we could take care of each other, cause I do think about you."

While flattering the offer, I do love my wife, and I am a reformed dirt bag. So I politely turned her down.

I also asked her if she had her tubes tied and she said "no, i might meet the man of my dreams and want to have his baby".


Plus your wife is SMOKING hot.  congrats.

Also she has the look of one that would shove you off a cliff if she found out.
 
2013-09-10 10:39:39 PM  

Mugato: fickenchucker: Still think welfare is a good thing, everyone?  The 17 cumbuckets would probably think twice about laying down with this walking turd if there was no money in it.

Yeah, raising a child and making a pittance in welfare from it is such a lucrative venture.


U.S. Birthrate:

1910 - 30.1 (per 1,000 pop)
1920 - 27.7
1930 - 21.3
1935 - 18.7 (year AFDC was created)
1940 - 19.4
1945 - 20.4 (WWI)
1950 - 24.1 (Baby Boom)
1955 - 25.0 (Baby Boom)
1960 - 23.7
1964 - 21.0 (year Food Stamp Act was passed)
1970 - 18.4
1975 - 14.8
1980 - 15.9
1985 - 15.8
1990 - 16.7
1996 - 14.7 ("welfare reform" passed)
2000 - 14.7
2005 - 14.0
2010 - 13.0

/my suspicion - there is no causal link between "welfare" and birth rates
 
2013-09-10 10:41:43 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Mugato: fickenchucker: Still think welfare is a good thing, everyone?  The 17 cumbuckets would probably think twice about laying down with this walking turd if there was no money in it.

Yeah, raising a child and making a pittance in welfare from it is such a lucrative venture.

U.S. Birthrate:

1910 - 30.1 (per 1,000 pop)
1920 - 27.7
1930 - 21.3
1935 - 18.7 (year AFDC was created)
1940 - 19.4
1945 - 20.4 (WWI)
1950 - 24.1 (Baby Boom)
1955 - 25.0 (Baby Boom)
1960 - 23.7
1964 - 21.0 (year Food Stamp Act was passed)
1970 - 18.4
1975 - 14.8
1980 - 15.9
1985 - 15.8
1990 - 16.7
1996 - 14.7 ("welfare reform" passed)
2000 - 14.7
2005 - 14.0
2010 - 13.0

/my suspicion - there is no causal link between "welfare" and birth rates


Those rates are useless without providing the context of overall population and employment rates. Unless you're being purposefully misleading...
 
2013-09-10 10:42:12 PM  
Some of you are thinking too short term.  First of all, the man's got a goal in life.  He's going to have enough kids that he gets his own reality show.  Once the money from that starts rolling in, of course he's going to be responsible and use it to raise his kids right and help them get a leg up in life.  And, to be honest, after you put 20+ kids through college or trade school, the odds are good that most of them will make enough of a contribution to society to negate any harm that the 1 or 2 bad seeds will cause.  Of course, with that many well-educated kids, there's also an excellent chance that at least one of them will be the next Einstein -- and you can't place a value on that.
 
2013-09-10 10:42:20 PM  
*of course I meant WWII in 1945
 
2013-09-10 10:44:29 PM  

Theaetetus: He sure likes Dayton, but I guess he's not the Marion kind.


He can't remember if he is Dayton a girl from Eaton, or Eaton a  girl from Dayton.
 
2013-09-10 10:44:56 PM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: skinink: "Smith, who hopes to get a reality show..."
For what talent?

[farm5.staticflickr.com image 500x460]


Thank you.
 
2013-09-10 10:45:47 PM  

MrHappyRotter: Some of you are thinking too short term.  First of all, the man's got a goal in life.  He's going to have enough kids that he gets his own reality show.  Once the money from that starts rolling in, of course he's going to be responsible and use it to raise his kids right and help them get a leg up in life.  And, to be honest, after you put 20+ kids through college or trade school, the odds are good that most of them will make enough of a contribution to society to negate any harm that the 1 or 2 bad seeds will cause.  Of course, with that many well-educated kids, there's also an excellent chance that at least one of them will be the next Einstein -- and you can't place a value on that.


Or the next Hitler, in which case he cancels out up to 20,000,000 kids.
 
2013-09-10 10:46:11 PM  
1) Make assumption
2) Check article
3) Confirm assumption
4) Wish for involuntary sterilization for that fool
 
2013-09-10 10:46:17 PM  

Amos Quito: [www.centerforinquiry.net image 250x250]

Best argument EVAR!


I always thought that logo looked vaguely like somebody punch-fisting a uterus.
 
2013-09-10 10:46:39 PM  
Just to clarify, the "rate per 1,000" is decreasing (obiously, as the population is much larger than jt was 100 years ago) but the actual number of births per year is increasing.
 
2013-09-10 10:49:40 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: MrHappyRotter: Some of you are thinking too short term.  First of all, the man's got a goal in life.  He's going to have enough kids that he gets his own reality show.  Once the money from that starts rolling in, of course he's going to be responsible and use it to raise his kids right and help them get a leg up in life.  And, to be honest, after you put 20+ kids through college or trade school, the odds are good that most of them will make enough of a contribution to society to negate any harm that the 1 or 2 bad seeds will cause.  Of course, with that many well-educated kids, there's also an excellent chance that at least one of them will be the next Einstein -- and you can't place a value on that.

Or the next Hitler, in which case he cancels out up to 20,000,000 kids.


Sorry, that title has already been taken by Obama.
 
2013-09-10 10:49:46 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: AliceBToklasLives: Mugato: fickenchucker: Still think welfare is a good thing, everyone?  The 17 cumbuckets would probably think twice about laying down with this walking turd if there was no money in it.

Yeah, raising a child and making a pittance in welfare from it is such a lucrative venture.

U.S. Birthrate:

1910 - 30.1 (per 1,000 pop)
1920 - 27.7
1930 - 21.3
1935 - 18.7 (year AFDC was created)
1940 - 19.4
1945 - 20.4 (WWI)
1950 - 24.1 (Baby Boom)
1955 - 25.0 (Baby Boom)
1960 - 23.7
1964 - 21.0 (year Food Stamp Act was passed)
1970 - 18.4
1975 - 14.8
1980 - 15.9
1985 - 15.8
1990 - 16.7
1996 - 14.7 ("welfare reform" passed)
2000 - 14.7
2005 - 14.0
2010 - 13.0

/my suspicion - there is no causal link between "welfare" and birth rates

Those rates are useless without providing the context of overall population and employment rates. Unless you're being purposefully misleading...


Well obviously it would take a serious study to determine if there is even a correlation between welfare and population.  However, it is uncontroversial that birth rates have gone down dramatically since the US began serious welfare programs.  Today, the overall birth rate is about the lowest in US history, as is the teen birth rate.  And these numbers are not just a result of the current recession but the same trend (in both booming economies and in recessions) of the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
 
2013-09-10 10:49:58 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Just to clarify, the "rate per 1,000" is decreasing (obiously, as the population is much larger than jt was 100 years ago) but the actual number of births per year is increasing.


I'll be perfectly honest, I saw a bunch of numbers and passed over it like I do when I'm reading a wikipedia article that suddenly has a random physics equation in the middle of it.
 
2013-09-10 10:51:10 PM  

Greywar: theflatline: I work with a very hot young black woman, 28, who has five kids, she looks like the oldest sister on the fresh prince.  Smoking.

Her old man is in jail right now and she said to me"i know your wife is out of the country for awhile, so I been thinking we could take care of each other, cause I do think about you."

While flattering the offer, I do love my wife, and I am a reformed dirt bag. So I politely turned her down.

I also asked her if she had her tubes tied and she said "no, i might meet the man of my dreams and want to have his baby".

Plus your wife is SMOKING hot.  congrats.

Also she has the look of one that would shove you off a cliff if she found out.


hahahaha, there are are a few farkers that think my wife is a plain jane, and called her a solid six.

i did not marry her because she was good looking, i married her because she is a good person.   who happens to be good looking.
 
2013-09-10 10:56:58 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Just to clarify, the "rate per 1,000" is decreasing (obiously, as the population is much larger than jt was 100 years ago) but the actual number of births per year is increasing.


Well obviously the population has been steadily increasing, ergo the birthrate is going to be increasing. That doesn't mean there are a significant number of people who actually think having kids and getting on welfare is a lucrative business venture.

I'm not defending this idiot or people like him but people who cry about their precious tax dollars being wasted on welfare and food stamps or whatever are crying about the wrong misuse of their tax dollars.
 
2013-09-10 10:57:06 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: AliceBToklasLives: Mugato: fickenchucker: Still think welfare is a good thing, everyone?  The 17 cumbuckets would probably think twice about laying down with this walking turd if there was no money in it.

Yeah, raising a child and making a pittance in welfare from it is such a lucrative venture.

U.S. Birthrate:

1910 - 30.1 (per 1,000 pop)
1920 - 27.7
1930 - 21.3
1935 - 18.7 (year AFDC was created)
1940 - 19.4
1945 - 20.4 (WWI)
1950 - 24.1 (Baby Boom)
1955 - 25.0 (Baby Boom)
1960 - 23.7
1964 - 21.0 (year Food Stamp Act was passed)
1970 - 18.4
1975 - 14.8
1980 - 15.9
1985 - 15.8
1990 - 16.7
1996 - 14.7 ("welfare reform" passed)
2000 - 14.7
2005 - 14.0
2010 - 13.0

/my suspicion - there is no causal link between "welfare" and birth rates

Those rates are useless without providing the context of overall population and employment rates. Unless you're being purposefully misleading...

Well obviously it would take a serious study to determine if there is even a correlation between welfare and population.  However, it is uncontroversial that birth rates have gone down dramatically since the US began serious welfare programs.  Today, the overall birth rate is about the lowest in US history, as is the teen birth rate.  And these numbers are not just a result of the current recession but the same trend (in both booming economies and in recessions) of the 70s, 80s, and 90s.


Of course the rate is the lowest it's been in history, we have the largest population we have in history.

If you have a population of 2 and one has a child, the birth rate is 50%, but if you have a population of 200 and 20 has children, the "rate" drops by 40% but the actual number of kids increased by 200%.

This is why statistics are largely bullshiat when used like this.
 
2013-09-10 10:58:22 PM  
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Just to clarify, the "rate per 1,000" is decreasing (obiously, as the population is much larger than jt was 100 years ago) but the actual number of births per year is increasing.


Well obviously the population has been steadily increasing, ergo the birthrate is going to be increasing. That doesn't mean there are a significant number of people who actually think having kids and getting on welfare is a lucrative business venture.
I'm not defending this idiot or people like him but people who cry about their precious tax dollars being wasted on welfare and food stamps or whatever are crying about the wrong misuse of their tax dollars.
 
2013-09-10 11:00:13 PM  

Mugato: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Just to clarify, the "rate per 1,000" is decreasing (obiously, as the population is much larger than jt was 100 years ago) but the actual number of births per year is increasing.

Well obviously the population has been steadily increasing, ergo the birthrate is going to be increasing. That doesn't mean there are a significant number of people who actually think having kids and getting on welfare is a lucrative business venture.

I'm not defending this idiot or people like him but people who cry about their precious tax dollars being wasted on welfare and food stamps or whatever are crying about the wrong misuse of their tax dollars.


biatching about people on welfare crapping out kids definitely silly, but the actual number of children
to families on welfare is at an all time high. I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, but I grew that in terms of wasted tax dollars it's a drop in the bucket.
 
2013-09-10 11:00:52 PM  
Please excuse that abomination of a post
 
2013-09-10 11:01:56 PM  
My favorite online conservative is this old douchebag who rails against people like this -- irresponsible men who spread their seed too far and wide without the wherewithal to nurture each sprout!  At the same time, he claims his hatred of gays is logical and scientific, because PROCREATION IS ALL THAT MATTERS.  GAYS ARE A DEAD END.

Honestly, i think he's just miffed that black guys are outdoing him.
 
2013-09-10 11:02:21 PM  
Sigh. Population increase does not necessarily mean an increase in the birth rate. Please look up "rate" on Wikipedia or something
 
2013-09-10 11:02:31 PM  
By using breeder logic - this guy is a winner.
 
2013-09-10 11:02:47 PM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: fickenchucker: Yeah, and forced sterilization is considered wrong.  Chances are this one guy foisted upon this country 27 future baby-mammas/baby-mamma-knocker-uppers.  Not to mention the dozens of other children his 17 baby-mammas probably have from other morans.  Still think welfare is a good thing, everyone?  The 17 cumbuckets would probably think twice about laying down with this walking turd if there was no money in it.

You're mistaken. People who make these choices have absolutely zero concept of the future. They do not plan, they simply live day to day. They are not gaming the system, they're just farking and don't give a shiat about birth control


100% this. People like this live for now. "It feels good, let's do it." You could tell them they'd have to PAY for every baby they made, or that they'd lose a limb for each conception leading to live birth; and all we'd have is lots of amputees hobbling all over the place. If you have a lot of average- to low-average intelligence people with very little to do and poor impulse control, then they're going to have lots of sex; and with good healthcare and no real infant or child mortality any more to worry about, then all their babies are going to live.

That society will pay them because we don't like dead babies is just a nice side effect of sex feeling good.
 
2013-09-10 11:06:13 PM  
You don't understand the purpose of rates.
 
2013-09-10 11:07:04 PM  
One could assume that most of these cherrn are conceived in the same hood and are about the same age. If the behavior of the father is passed on to those cherrn, won't we have a lot of brothers and sisters farking each other 14 years later, putting the inbreeding of the deep south and England combined to shame?
 
2013-09-10 11:08:47 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Sigh. Population increase does not necessarily mean an increase in the birth rate. Please look up "rate" on Wikipedia or something


I'm assuming the above is in response to these:

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Just to clarify, the "rate per 1,000" is decreasing (obiously, as the population is much larger than jt was 100 years ago) but the actual number of births per year is increasing.


Mugato: Well obviously the population has been steadily increasing, ergo the birthrate is going to be increasing.

Because they made my head hurt.
 
2013-09-10 11:08:53 PM  
One more time, because you're obviously not very smart - people on welfare are having more kids now than in any point in history.

The overall birth rate is low precisely because the population is high. This doesn't mean that *births* are low (they aren't), just that they're low in comparison to the overall population.
 
2013-09-10 11:10:01 PM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: Mugato: Well obviously the population has been steadily increasing, ergo the birthrate is going to be increasing.

Because they made my head hurt.


I mis-"spoke". I meant number of births.
 
2013-09-10 11:11:15 PM  

Mugato: Occam's Disposable Razor: Mugato: Well obviously the population has been steadily increasing, ergo the birthrate is going to be increasing.

Because they made my head hurt.

I mis-"spoke". I meant number of births.


Wasn't trying to be a dick, thanks for being civil!
 
2013-09-10 11:12:16 PM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: Mugato: Occam's Disposable Razor: Mugato: Well obviously the population has been steadily increasing, ergo the birthrate is going to be increasing.

Because they made my head hurt.

I mis-"spoke". I meant number of births.

Wasn't trying to be a dick, thanks for being civil!


I didn't mispeak, if my post didn't make sense to you you need to go back to math school
 
2013-09-10 11:13:43 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: One more time, because you're obviously not very smart - people on welfare are having more kids now than in any point in history.

The overall birth rate is low precisely because the population is high. This doesn't mean that *births* are low (they aren't), just that they're low in comparison to the overall population.


By that logic, this is the best time ever to look for a job, because there are more Americans employed today that ever. Since no one would make such a claim, the relevant data is not raw numbers but rates (such as the unemployment rate).

/why stoop to calling me dumb? Call my argument dumb if you wish, but try being civil - it's possible even on Fark
 
2013-09-10 11:16:21 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: One more time, because you're obviously not very smart - people on welfare are having more kids now than in any point in history.

The overall birth rate is low precisely because the population is high. This doesn't mean that *births* are low (they aren't), just that they're low in comparison to the overall population.

By that logic, this is the best time ever to look for a job, because there are more Americans employed today that ever. Since no one would make such a claim, the relevant data is not raw numbers but rates (such as the unemployment rate).

/why stoop to calling me dumb? Call my argument dumb if you wish, but try being civil - it's possible even on Fark


You're either stupid or intentionally misusing the data to make your point. I value personal integrity, so me calling you stupid is a compliment considering the alternative.
 
2013-09-10 11:17:59 PM  

tetsoushima: Amos Quito: [www.centerforinquiry.net image 250x250]

Best argument EVAR!

I always thought that logo looked vaguely like somebody punch-fisting a uterus.



img.fark.net

25.media.tumblr.com

This came to mind.


/Nostalgia from the 70's
 
2013-09-10 11:19:06 PM  

Amos Quito: I always thought that logo looked vaguely like somebody punch-fisting a uterus.


And there's an upside down cross too.
 
2013-09-10 11:20:14 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: AliceBToklasLives: Mugato: fickenchucker: Still think welfare is a good thing, everyone?  The 17 cumbuckets would probably think twice about laying down with this walking turd if there was no money in it.

Yeah, raising a child and making a pittance in welfare from it is such a lucrative venture.

U.S. Birthrate:

1910 - 30.1 (per 1,000 pop)
1920 - 27.7
1930 - 21.3
1935 - 18.7 (year AFDC was created)
1940 - 19.4
1945 - 20.4 (WWI)
1950 - 24.1 (Baby Boom)
1955 - 25.0 (Baby Boom)
1960 - 23.7
1964 - 21.0 (year Food Stamp Act was passed)
1970 - 18.4
1975 - 14.8
1980 - 15.9
1985 - 15.8
1990 - 16.7
1996 - 14.7 ("welfare reform" passed)
2000 - 14.7
2005 - 14.0
2010 - 13.0

/my suspicion - there is no causal link between "welfare" and birth rates

Those rates are useless without providing the context of overall population and employment rates. Unless you're being purposefully misleading...

Well obviously it would take a serious study to determine if there is even a correlation between welfare and population.  However, it is uncontroversial that birth rates have gone down dramatically since the US began serious welfare programs.  Today, the overall birth rate is about the lowest in US history, as is the teen birth rate.  And these numbers are not just a result of the current recession but the same trend (in both booming economies and in recessions) of the 70s, 80s, and 90s.



The only relevant stat would be birth rates among those on welfare.
 
2013-09-10 11:27:23 PM  

ocd002: *whine* "But baby, condoms ruin sex for me"

You know what ruins sex? Kids.

Kids and marriage in general.


It's the ultimate Catch-22.
 
2013-09-10 11:29:09 PM  

Mugato: fickenchucker: Still think welfare is a good thing, everyone?  The 17 cumbuckets would probably think twice about laying down with this walking turd if there was no money in it.

Yeah, raising a child and making a pittance in welfare from it is such a lucrative venture.


Doesn't seem to dissuade a certain segment of the population.  In fact they seem to think it's quite the reward to get that bump in the monthly check with each extra mouth they squeeze out.
 
2013-09-10 11:32:29 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: Doesn't seem to dissuade a certain segment of the population.  In fact they seem to think it's quite the reward to get that bump in the monthly check with each extra mouth they squeeze out.


Yeah. And you learned about their motivations from all your time spent in the inner city talking to these welfare queens.
 
2013-09-10 11:52:00 PM  

Mugato: SCUBA_Archer: Doesn't seem to dissuade a certain segment of the population.  In fact they seem to think it's quite the reward to get that bump in the monthly check with each extra mouth they squeeze out.

Yeah. And you learned about their motivations from all your time spent in the inner city talking to these welfare queens.


Their actions speak for themselves.  I don't see a huge segment of the welfare population crusading for reductions in birth numbers.

And I don't remember anywhere in my comment where I was referring to the "inner city" so I'm not sure what you're implying.
 
2013-09-10 11:53:34 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: AliceBToklasLives: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: One more time, because you're obviously not very smart - people on welfare are having more kids now than in any point in history.

The overall birth rate is low precisely because the population is high. This doesn't mean that *births* are low (they aren't), just that they're low in comparison to the overall population.

By that logic, this is the best time ever to look for a job, because there are more Americans employed today that ever. Since no one would make such a claim, the relevant data is not raw numbers but rates (such as the unemployment rate).

/why stoop to calling me dumb? Call my argument dumb if you wish, but try being civil - it's possible even on Fark

You're either stupid or intentionally misusing the data to make your point. I value personal integrity, so me calling you stupid is a compliment considering the alternative.


Ok I'll try again.  The birth rate can go down when the population increases.  In fact that is the general trend in the US over the last century (more babies are born while each woman has, on average, fewer babies).

In 1910 there were about 92,000,000 Americans and 3.1% of Americans had a baby that year for a total of about 2,700,000 babies.

In 2000 there were about 281,000,000 Americans and 1.4% of Americans had a baby that year for a total of about 4,000,000 babies.

Notice how the population rose some 300% while the number of babies born rose only 148%.  This means that the birth rate fell while the population rose.  More babies are being born but the average American is having fewer babies.

Of course "people on welfare are having more kids now than in any point in history" - the population has tripled since 1910 and has been steadily increasing ever since.  For the same reason, there are also more Americans employed now than in any point in history.  And there are more Americans unemployed than in any point in history.  There are more Americans in prison than in any point in history.   There are more Americans with high school diplomas than in any point in history.   There are more left-handed Americans than in any point in history.  And so on and so on.
 
2013-09-10 11:53:34 PM  

Mugato: SCUBA_Archer: Doesn't seem to dissuade a certain segment of the population.  In fact they seem to think it's quite the reward to get that bump in the monthly check with each extra mouth they squeeze out.

Yeah. And you learned about their motivations from all your time spent in the inner city talking to these welfare queens.


I'm going to make a non fark type statement, before a revert back to my trolling,

I think it's more to do with certain cultural norms of their peer group. Welfare played into by removing some of the social structure of the family, but the culture of the socioeconomic group played a bigger role. I've worked with a bunch of public health/social workers in the past. A lot of them stated that the teens they were working with, had this farked up idea that they were grown up and women now since they had child. Plus their parents had a kid when they were 14 so it wasn't that out of the ordinary.


/back to regularly schedule programming
//I'm pro retroactive abortion
 
Displayed 50 of 145 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report