Post: #1

And you thought Octomom had her hands full—a Tennessee man who has fathered 30 children is asking the courts for a break on child support.

Desmond Hatchett, 33, of Knoxville has children with 11 different women, reports WREG-TV.

The state already takes half his paycheck and divides it up, which doesn't amount to much when Hatchett is making only minimum wage. Some of the moms receive as little as $1.49 a month. The oldest child is 14 years old.

Hatchett explains how he reached such a critical mass: He had four kids in the same year. Twice.

Back in 2009 when Hatchett was in court to answer charges that many of the mothers were not receiving child support, he had 21 children. At the time, he said he was not going to father any more kids, but he ended up having nine more in the past three years.

The state cannot order Hatchett to stop making babies. He hasn't broken any laws, according to the report.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man...Q--;_ylv=3

Post: #2

This highlights the problem with too much government welfare. These women lose all incentive to find men who can be good providers and just spread their legs for some charming player, knowing that government will foot the bill. And we already know this man's 30 children are going to grow up, on average, to be a drain on society.

Meanwhile, most productive betas, the ones who support this dysfunctional society, are having 0, 1 or 2 kids. Who will grow up to either be victimized by or to financially support, via taxes, the first guy's children.

Post: #3

http://menspolitics.com/56.boss

Explains it all. Amazing site

Post: #4

we need eugenics

Post: #5

(05-18-2012 01:59 PM)assman Wrote:  This highlights the problem with too much government welfare. These women lose all incentive to find men who can be good providers and just spread their legs for some charming player, knowing that government will foot the bill. And we already know this man's 30 children are going to grow up, on average, to be a drain on society.

Meanwhile, most productive betas, the ones who support this dysfunctional society, are having 0, 1 or 2 kids. Who will grow up to either be victimized by or to financially support, via taxes, the first guy's children.

Spot on! Blame can be put on the women as well. Takes two to tango. Plus aren't these fools worried about stds? IMHO, they need to make laws that punish reckless behavior like this where society "the taxpayer" needs to pick up the pieces afterwards. People will argue that the government needs to keep out of their business in these mating, dating and relationship issues. However, MOST will expect the government to pick up the pieces after a failed marriage or relationship.

Well the reality is how much longer can this go on? These 30 or so children how productive will they be along with their step siblings? I hope they all become productive citizens, but I am pessimistic. Where will this money come from to support the lives of these dare I say fatherless children? Increasing taxes? How much of an increase can Americans stomach? This behavior is common in poorer districts so the schools happen to be poorer as well in the USA. If they even graduate will they lead a life of crime? Work for minimum wage at a burger joint or Walmart? Join the military and go thousands of miles to kill someone because they prevent some rich busnessmen from getting cheap access to oil? ( the military does serve a useful purpose, but I feel that some soldiers have served and died in vain by being misled by corrupt politicians. From the Vietnam war ( Henry Kissinger should be tried for war crimes btw) to the WOD fallacy GWB had all believe when he started the 2nd gulf war. Well by the time many of these children reach 18, the military will have received many budget cuts so these children probably won't even be recruited. So, these budget shortfalls in the end prevent the person from getting employment in the end. Increases in taxes and budget cuts primarily I think will be in the military will lead to a miserable life. In the end poverty and possibly a life of crime to survive.

There are careless individuals in every society. The taxpayer and citizen need to pay either directly or indirectly for these fools' choices. Whether it is welfare, building prisons or installing security cameras. It will have a burden on us all. now we may all disagree or agree on certain points, but the fact is, this costs MONEY! This is a negative expense and one that I can do without.

Post: #6

Girls should be forced to get their tubes tied after 2 kids if they don't have the income. I'm sick of welfare and all that bullshit.

Post: #7

You shouldn't get a tax break beyond a certain number of children (say, 2).

You should get a (refundable) tax credit for annual notches (not resulting in pregnancy)!

Tuthmosis for President 2016!

Post: #8

(05-18-2012 02:26 PM)Manwhore Wrote:  http://menspolitics.com/56.boss

Explains it all. Amazing site

Post: #9

The Cleveland tourism parody video was good.

Post: #10

I've got it, birth tax! You must pay $10,000 for each child you have, if you cant it automatically goes up for adoption, no tag backs!

Chef In Jeans
A culinary website for men

Post: #11

Post: #12

(05-18-2012 02:26 PM)Manwhore Wrote:  http://menspolitics.com/56.boss

Explains it all. Amazing site

HBD = race trolling

Post: #13

(05-18-2012 02:34 PM)theoogabear Wrote:  we need eugenics

We already have eugenics.

Its called feminism and socialism run amok -

without such a generous "safety net" , most women would never impregnate themselves by this idiot and the few who did would along with their offspring live a miserable life thereby teaching a lesson to the others.

Post: #14

Here we go again

Post: #15

^ The population dynamics of guys like this having a shitload of kids in concert with 'career women' who let their eggs spoil and 'career men' who don't want to get divorce raped are crazy to think about.

Post: #16

^^^ "Nothing comes to a dreamer," but he plays the lottery and scratch off because he can't get a job.

Post: #17

Guy came to court with fresh gear and a fresh cut and has money to play the number but none for his kids, who cost taxpayers about $7,000 a month

Post: #18

This guy has found a way to stick it to the system. I give him props for that.

Post: #19

(07-30-2014 08:01 PM)Onto Wrote:  This guy has found a way to stick it to the system. I give him props for that.

"The system" = hardworking American taxpayers

Post: #20

(07-30-2014 08:06 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 08:01 PM)Onto Wrote:  This guy has found a way to stick it to the system. I give him props for that.

"The system" = hardworking American taxpayers

The system I'm referring to is the family court system. I feel like the headline for this thread is misleading. This guy is not paying $1.49 in child support. More than half his paycheck is going to the child support system. The first child's Mother was "lucky" in that she is probably getting the lions share, but any newcomers on that train are riding in the back with the luggage.

Keep in mind he's also paying tax on his earnings as well. How about the woman who knows he already has 20+ kids, not spread her legs for this guy? How 'bout that?

How about we don't pay women for having kids out of wedlock. There is no excuse for it anymore. It's her body, thus it's her responsibility. Countries that do this have not so surprisingly less children out of wedlock. Remove the incentive for women, and they will adjust accordingly.

Oh but wait, this is America, the land of the freedom from responsibility for women.

By the way, I pay over $1500/month for 1 kid, so take my posting with a grain of salt as I obviously have an ax to grind with the system.

Post: #21

(07-30-2014 08:19 PM)Onto Wrote:  By the way, I pay over $1500/month for 1 kid, so take my posting with a grain of salt as I obviously have an ax to grind with the system.

OK, this makes your disposition more understandable. Also, I thought you were talking about the last person who is paying ZERO child support.

Post: #22

(07-30-2014 08:29 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 08:19 PM)Onto Wrote:  By the way, I pay over $1500/month for 1 kid, so take my posting with a grain of salt as I obviously have an ax to grind with the system.

OK, this makes your disposition more understandable.

Yeah, I don't mean to sound attacking. I understand where you're coming from. This guy is blowing loads like he has diplomatic immunity, because what more can they possibly take from him?

That's the funny part for me, the child support system will suck you dry for the first few kids, but after that you kind of get diplomatic immunity status.

That said, I agree with you, it's a shame the taxpayers have to pay for this.

Post: #23

(07-30-2014 08:43 PM)Onto Wrote:  That said, I agree with you, it's a shame the taxpayers have to pay for this.

Maybe this will help to clarify my position

Post: #24

It's amazing how at the end she is pointing the finger outward and saying, "Someone needs to pay for all my children. Someone needs to be held accountable and they need to pay."

Never does the finger point inward towards herself as possibly being the reason all those children are there.

Post: #25

The state is paying these women to raise these kids betting that some of them will earn some taxable income in the future.