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 32
    More: Dumbass, Dayton  
•       •       •

8051 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-11 03:29:57 AM  
2 votes:
While it is unlikely that he and the women are working full time, and the women probably recieve 1000 a month in WIC, EBT, Welfare and other combinations of assistance, like section 8 housing, utility subsidies,etc. It would be nice to see whether the women are working, have found other guys, or if parents/relatives/friends/neighbors etc are helping in this situations.

Please take into account that without immigration the US population is currently producing 1.3 children/per two adults, and so is actually falling below replacement rate.
~330 million US population, 3.1 million US Born, 935,000 Foriegn Born.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-r e cord-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/">http://www.pewsocialt rends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-re cord-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/

Finally his rate of reproduction, assuming that the women have no other children would be 27/18 (17 women and himself) or 1.5, which is still not all that above the non-immigration average rate of reproduction for the US population.

So obviously he is jerk to the women in all manners of speaking, but his anomolous behaviour is probably not too damaging to the US economy, and at worst would be costing taxpayers (10*$28,000)+(7*20,000)+12,000= $432,000 each year, including average school enrollment for the kids, plus the new health care law. However this number would only be applicable if nobody in the 18 adults were working, there was no family support, no friends working to help out or share apartments with, no recipricol relationship of baby sitting, just lumps sitting in their house, and doing nothing externally, not even spending money from the government, and no multiplier effect of government spending within the economy.
Now if they all worked minimum wage, 1/2 time jobs, the cost to support them drops to $432,000 - $180,000 = $252,000
If they worked minimum wage and 3/4 time jobs, the cost to support them drops to $432,000 - $270,000 = $162,000
If they lived with friends or family, and shared food, utilities and other things, then the cost to support them drops to 252,000 - (6,000*18) = $144,000
or 162,000- (6,000*18) = $48,000
and if they all held above minimum wage jobs to the tune of $11.00 per hour and were 3/4 time and shared room, utilities, etc, and were also active in the community in terms of helping with other kids (group babysitting, or other community aspects) they could easily be above the net take line.
$432,000 - ((18*$20,000) + (18*$6000) + (17*4000)) = 432,000 - (360,000 - 108,000 - 68,000) = -104,000. Or in accounting terms a contribution to society of $104,000 towards the public good and services earnings.

As this is fark, everybody assumes the worst, but while this is a hard thing to understand, as it is really an anomoly, it is exactly the same cost and effect that two people having 3 kids, is contributing to the overall burden on the planet, 1.5, and assuming that those two people don't work or contribute to society at all in a vacuum environment this 5 person family situation would cost (1 household*12000)+(3*8,000) = $36,000 per year in costs to society. In fact under these same conditions, it would only take 9 families in this more "normal" configuration to cost the same to house feed and clothe.
So 45 people in the "normal" 5 person family would take $324,000 a year and 45 in the anomolous 18 and 27 kids situation would be $432,000

It's easy to judgemental, not so easy to be so judgemental once you think about it in a more complex manner.

I know, no one cares TL;DR
To sum up, this guys lifestyle and the 17 women's lifestyle are only about 33% more resource consuming than the average 5 person household at a basic economic/welfare consumption analysis. The rest of the comments are simply judgemental based on whatever biases the commenter has.

Ironically, if he had less kids, he would be be adding more to the burden of society.
Here is the economics of that,
If he had stayed with just 17 kids, (instead of 27) these 18 people's lifestyle would be 39% more resource consuming than 7 average 5 person households.
(17*20,000)+(1*12,000) = $352,000 for 35 people, versus 7*36,000 =$252,000 for 35 people in 5 person household.

Finally if he had 34 kids, for a total of 52 people involved or the same number of people in (8) 5 person and (2) 6 person households to make 52,
it would be (17*28,000)+(1*12,000)=488,000 versus (8*36,000)+(2*44,000)=376,000
The anomlous lifestyle would still be ~30% more resource consuming, but less impactful on society than his current circumstance.
2013-09-11 12:33:04 AM  
2 votes:
I meet people like this all the time. They are all about fatherhood and wanting their kids to have the life they never had and taking care of them so they grow up right. They give everything they have for their kids. . . in their heads. In reality, they have no money, they don't pay child support, and any money they get disappears the second they get it, lest one of their baby mamas get it. They think they're being unjustly judged by a society unable to appreciate what they have to offer. They're basically narcissistic a**holes who do nothing but cause problems for other people. And they seem to attract women like flies. What's amazing is that a lot of the women who have their children know about all the other women and the other children. Each one thinks she's the one who's going to get him to settle down and do right, and that the other women are just greedy, manipulative biatches intent on stealing him back. .

Lawyers meet a lot of guys like that; we call them clients.
2013-09-10 10:51:10 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:19:43 PM  
2 votes:
And we are all paying for it too, enjoy the fact your hard earned money feeds his crotch fruits while a good portion of them are probably going to be in prison soon enough so thats even more money.

Duggers did it right, this pos needs to be in prison, and not let out
2013-09-10 10:08:07 PM  
2 votes:
He may not be able to add but at least he can multiply.
2013-09-10 09:57:14 PM  
2 votes:

oldwolf49: We need a license for EVERYTHING ELSE why the hell don't we to have kids yet........this should be something the repugnatcons are all over!!


Because, silly, that would be racist.

/ and, I'm not sure that repugnatcons is a word
2013-09-10 09:56:43 PM  
2 votes:

oldwolf49: We need a license for EVERYTHING ELSE why the hell don't we to have kids yet


dilbert.com
2013-09-10 09:42:54 PM  
2 votes:
I'm not going to predict that it's a black guy.
2013-09-10 09:40:56 PM  
2 votes:
lh4.googleusercontent.com
2013-09-11 08:39:25 AM  
1 votes:
25.media.tumblr.com

"We Bebe's kids, we don't die, we multiply"
2013-09-11 07:30:08 AM  
1 votes:

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.


This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen posted on Fark (ignoring conservative derp). It's especially rich because this poster clearly thingks s/he is making a self-evidently intelligent point while completely missing the reason why birth rates are far more relevant to the discussion than raw birth numbers. Wow. Just wow.
2013-09-11 12:30:13 AM  
1 votes:

The more you eat the more you fart: 27 kids by 17 diff women.

That means some of those dumb biatches let this trash get them pregnant more than once.

They must like being little more than a cum dumpster.


If only poor people weren't so anti-abortion...
2013-09-10 11:53:34 PM  
1 votes:

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
2013-09-10 11:53:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:02:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:00:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:56:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:49:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:44:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:39:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:37:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:30:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:57 PM  
1 votes:

Brave: Law of Unintended Consequences continues to decimate American society.

If the government will feed, clothe and house your children, then it doesn't matter who the daddy is.


Idiots were breeding like rabbits back when there was no welfare and they toiled in the dirt and factories.
2013-09-10 10:26:58 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-09-10 10:25:08 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-09-10 10:18:15 PM  
1 votes:
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".
2013-09-10 10:16:19 PM  
1 votes:
Thanks,Mr. Nessman.
2013-09-10 10:15:59 PM  
1 votes:
Law of Unintended Consequences continues to decimate American society.

If the government will feed, clothe and house your children, then it doesn't matter who the daddy is.
2013-09-10 10:14:22 PM  
1 votes:
From a Darwinistic perspective, this guy *WINS*!
2013-09-10 09:59:28 PM  
1 votes:
He sure likes Dayton, but I guess he's not the Marion kind.
2013-09-10 09:56:27 PM  
1 votes:
*whine* "But baby, condoms ruin sex for me"

You know what ruins sex? Kids.

Kids and marriage in general.
2013-09-10 09:54:50 PM  
1 votes:
We need a license for EVERYTHING ELSE why the hell don't we to have kids yet........this should be something the repugnatcons are all over!!
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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