Happy Early Baby’s Daddy Day
Since Indiana lawmakers aren’t accomplishing anything and still costing you money, I thought I’d give you another story to express your shock and outrage. Enjoy!!!
From The Huffington Post
Desmond Hatchett, a 29 year old who lives in Knoxville, Tennessee, has fathered 20 (maybe 21) children with at least 11 different mothers. The kids, who are between 11 months and 11 years old, require food, clothing, etc. which doesn’t come cheap. That’s a problem for their minimum-wage earning father.
“I had four kids in the same year. Twice.”Hatchett says.
He was called to court last week where he appeared on the docket eleven times to answer for 15 of his 21 children who haven’t received child support recently. The mothers of Hatchett’s children are supposed to get anywhere from $25 to $309 a month, but the government is only allowed to take up to 50% of his pay check, and when that’s split so many times some women only get a $1.98 a month.
Here’s a thought. Instead of paying people to have children, how about we pay them not to have children? If they come get a vasectomy or tubal ligation, we give them $1,000. If they want the procedure reversed they would have to pay for it themselves. This would save taxpayers money, and more importantly, reduce the number of children who are born to idiots!
Hey, we gotta break the cycle some way, right?
June 12th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Reminds me of a discussion in Jon Krakauer’s “Under the Banner of Heaven” where he describes the FLDS Mormon fundamentalists in Colorado City, Utah and other places whose economy is (or at least was) substantially boosted by child welfare payments.
Those polygamous marriages aren’t recognized by the state, so the “spirit wives” are single mothers for the purposes of welfare determinations.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Wait, wouldn’t that like massive government interference with personal liberties?
June 12th, 2009 at 8:20 am
This fellow is the poster boy for Planned Parenthood’s Sanger. Jesse Jackson used to say of abortion that it was genocide. There is a reason or two why PP locates it’s killing facilities in hispanic and negro neighborhoods. Their words are not now as explicit as their actions. I don’t remember reading anything at all about a federal role, in the constitution about rewarding promiscuity so one wonders why we are. The Abdul solution was tried here and in other places back in the day when Fascism and it’s stepchild, eugenics, were all the rage among Indiana legislators. I think that might have been in the era when they altered the value of pi to make it easier on hoosier math teachers.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Hot….mess! The baby mamas are stupid also for getting with this clown. But have no doubt – even though the mamas are only getting that $1.98, their hair will still be done and they’ll still be rockin’ cute outfits. See this waaaaay to much and it’s just sad and depressing. Paying them $1,000 to handle their “business” won’t do anything about changing that ghetto mindset.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:51 am
I’m with you in cases jike this Abdul. Normally I’m against Govt. sticking their noses in stuff but sometimes common sense has to prevail.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:22 am
This is no different from any other kind of voluntary government incentives that produce results that the government wants in the private sector. If state and local government want Honda jobs and income taxes, government offers incentives.
.
I agree with Abdul’s premise and suggestion. Creative and worthwhile.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Bullseye, pascal. Does anyone want a real solution? How about this: Don’t let the government justify taking our incomes for EITHER circumstance. Stop enabling irresponsible behavior.
.
And I really don’t appreciate it when people start getting creative by deciding how the government should spend MY money.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Ditto to Shorebreak!
-
Rather than shred our Constitution, why not amend it to LEGALLY bestow all of this power to the national (not federal) government?
June 12th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Behavior (and the statistics) changed when money was offered as a defacto incentive. Watch it change back when money goes away.
.
As that’s politically unpalatable, transition the child birth money to child protection, and you’ll still watch the behavior change back- all while protecting children until the word’s out that the money’s gone for this “lifestyle choice”. An 18 month cap on biological reunification attempts- while we’re dreaming.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Hey! That was my idea I posted here! Actually, it was my friend Neal’s idea he told me over cocktails one night. And I think they would get their tubes tied or vasectomies for $100, not $1000.
.
I also think we need to immediately begin drug testing people who have been on welfare more than 6 months.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Behavior has NOT changed with money offered as a defacto incentive. That’s the whole problem. Poor people have always reproduced the fastest. And poor people have always committed the most crime. Nothing about that has changed. And I’m somewhat of a bleeding heart, but not a stupid one. If government handouts are not helping, then we should stop the handouts.
I actually would support Abdul’s suggestion. If it’s voluntary, it’s not infringing on anyone’s liberties. It saves taxpayers a bundle without actually cutting benefits for anyone. Win-win-win.
And Taxpayer 834512, if you think supporting welfare queens and their families is expensive and produces criminals, you ought to see the expense and crime statistics when you put kids in the foster care system. Way, way more expensive, and the delinquency is almost guaranteed.
June 12th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Pascal, seriously, where is your logic and decency?
.
I, too, like the idea. However, I’m also a fan of engaged government
.
I thought a lot of you were fans of limited and hands-off elected officials. So it’s hands-off for you but hands-on for other people. Seriously?
June 12th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I believe out-of-wedlock stats have somewhat leveled of late. But, if the contention is that single Mom birth stats are better than they were in the 50′s/60′s/70′s, I disagree. The Star quoted 89% out-of-wedlock for black single Moms in Marion county approx 18 mos ago. Over half out-of wedlock nationally overall, also around 1-2 yrs ago. A high %, at least 2/3 by my recollection of incarcerated black males from single parenting.
.
We all know instances of successes and failures in any combo of parenting, for any income, race, relegion, etc. But, looking at single parenting as statistical factor in abuse and neglect, graduation, incarceration, drug abuse, and poverty rates, makes it ludicrous to routinely pour tax dollars in as if it’s a grand success story. While I think the moral higher ground is in transition to child protection, I like Abdul’s idea too. No disagreement better funding is needed in foster parenting and/or swing it to institutional care (which deserves it’s Dickensian reputation without good funding).
.
What money won’t fix is trying to make parent(s) out of those that don’t want to be, the lessened stigma in America for poor parenting, and less “extended family” approach as other countries. The foster parents of our youngest concur that endless bilogical reunifications are nuts, basically feeding a system that often cares more about the money from keeping the loop intact than the future of the child.
June 12th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Pascal et. al: Planned Parenthood (PP) does much more than offer “killing facilitates” [sic]. PP provides necessary information to people of all classes, races, and both genders about pregnancy prevention, STD testing, neonatal care for people who want to be pregnant, etc. By your logic, hospitals and the military are “killing” facilities because some people die there, too.
.
PP has 6 locations in Indianapolis. Non are located in predominate black/Hispanic areas.
.
So for all of you who agree with Pascal and his really disturbing rants, rant somewhere else.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Inner City Mom:
.
You write, “Poor people have always reproduced the fastest. And poor people have always committed the most crime. Nothing about that has changed.”
.
However, neither of your facts are true. The US Government does not tracks reproduction by class. It tracks by race, gender, age, educational level, marriage. To argue, therefore, “poor people have always reproduced the fastest” lacks any sense of statistical fact.
.
There, again, is no US government statistical evidence about crimes and class.
.
It is statistically true, however, that the majority of people, regardless of race, gender, or class, do not commit crimes (unless we are counting white crimes, like speeding, tax evasion/lying).
.
Again, opinions are nice, but facts are real.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I love Planned Parenthood. I would not have had affordable birth control without them.
.
Regarding crime and class. I think people are people and dishonest people criminals are everywhere. Probably the more money, education, and position in society you have, the less likely you are to be charged with a crime.
.
Look how much corruption goes on in government without prosecutors going after it.
.
I don’t buy the crime and class thing.
June 12th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Prior to the Fascist FDR the Federal government was not anti family. With FDR the subsidy of foolishness began with regard to the poster boy above. PP targets Blacks, in particular for extermination using, of course, Abdul’s argument that society will save on crime, welfare, etc. etc. Ever read any Sanger? Want some of her quotes so as to be informed? Who is the largest money maker in the baby killing business in America? Oh yes, they do lots of nice things too, like help little old ladies cross busy streets.
June 12th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Many years ago there was a TV report of a guy who had fathered lots of babies. He said “I guess I must have strong sperm”
June 12th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Lot of emotional posting here on this topic—but if you have not been around the irresponsible people being discussed then perhaps need a dose of reality. It is possible that anyone on either drugs/alcohol or other addictive behavior or simply lacking any motivation to lead a “economic productive” life. Been there with family member and removing reproductive ability which they likely would respond to if for no other reason than the money for unproductive usage. This is not a class thing this is not a race thing it is reality. At a $1000 it would be many times cheaper than the alternative—my family member had two children which government paid for doctor care for mother and children—and now the children are being cared for by grandparents while mother (after an operation) is off somewhere. Time to start getting real.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I agree with Jack and Melyssa. (Pascal you will be ignored.) … In other news, it looks like MCPD arrested the John Marshall teacher who was accused of molestation and solicitation. In another post, I said “who cares” because no formal charges had been filed. Now, it is time to care. There should be a formal investigation into why IPS allowed the teacher to continue teaching/interacting with students. As someone else, maybe Think Again, wrote “heads should roll.”
June 12th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
—You write, “Poor people have always reproduced the fastest. And poor people have always committed the most crime. Nothing about that has changed.”
However, neither of your facts are true. The US Government does not tracks reproduction by class. It tracks by race, gender, age, educational level, marriage. To argue, therefore, “poor people have always reproduced the fastest” lacks any sense of statistical fact. —
My facts are not untrue, but they are hard to source. Different economic factors are indeed tracked by the government, as are birth rates and fertility rates, but they aren’t in a nice, neat database for us to use. But it is widely accepted that poor nations have higher birth rates than wealthier nations (in high school geography, this is called “demographic transition), and that in developed countries, the poor have higher birth rates than the wealthy (PP says it’s because the poor lack access to birth control, but there are many other factors involved as well). The fact that the poor have lots of children is pretty universal in any culture in any country in any time period in the world.
Similar with crime. Again, there isn’t a nice, neat database for me to link for you. But you don’t have to know much history to know that the poor, and specifically the urban poor have been associated with the majority of crime for 5000 years.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Dear Jerry Springer (I mean Abdul),
Slow news day?!?!
This suprises me. Didn’t think you would bottom feed this low for rating.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
There is a difference between a poor country (as measured by GDP) and poor people. While it might be true that people in poor countries have higher birthrates than people in richer countries (for obvious reason, like the higher mortality rate), it does not make it true that poor people in rich countries have more babies than rich people in rich countries. And what about rich people who for religious reasons have more children?
.
My point being, when we make generalities or absolutes (which is so easy online), we venture into very dangerous territory.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Abdul: Whether we all agree or not on it, thanks for tackling the topic. “Really”.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Historically, people were the wealth of the community. That is still true but unrecognized by the apologists for the status quo. Small families, for instance, are condemning Europe to a Muslim future. Small families are making big problems for Chinese males. Children are a blessing and a benefit to society. Murdering children by the millions surely messed up social security, for instance.
June 13th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Isn’t Huffington the female conservative wanna be who couldn’t make their team and wound up as a liberal? What’s her point of posting this? Why would a Libertarian care? Desmond is only doing what comes naturally and isn’t harming anyone. So his kids have benefits but you would not deny those benefits to the kids of illegals. Hell, Desmond is legal. He didn’t write the laws that allow you all to pay for his progeny. You keep those laws on the books. Anent the previous post, Perot, who gave us Bill Clinton and the phrase, giant sucking sound, didn’t know about how it really worked. In demographics, population density allows one to defend borders while implosion allows intruders. We needed those 50,000,000 but chose instead to replace them with Mexicans..who at least work. Desmond is doing his part. The word Abdul was looking for instead of idiots (which cannot be supported since we don’t know how smart the kids are) is imbeciles…so it would fit in with judical rulings back in the facist days of Holmes.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I've been thinking of something similar to this for a few years, and I owe the world a blog post.
At age 12 or 13 the “state” (city/state/federal gov't) provides a free IUD/reversible vasectomy. Can only be undone for free after age 21 and when a marriage license is applied for. If they want it undone on their own, they can pay for it.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
How about we all mind our own business and fix your own households, or your sisters and your brothers and the world just might be a better place. And how much money are you donating to fix this situation? I can say where the line starts!!! Don't worry people, he has family thats making babies to this day and dont see them or pay not one red cent for child support!! Pay them a thousand dollars to do their JOB as a man!!!
June 18th, 2009 at 6:01 am
http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20090618/OP... for someone speaking truth to liars and busting myths held by some unlearned posters here.
June 18th, 2009 at 7:21 am
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11990 Follow this site for a month or two and read up on PP. Incidently, Sanger was near totally against abortion whereas PP makes most of their private sector money off of killing babies….the balance coming mostly (their budget) from taxpayers.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:01 am
http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20090618/OP... for someone speaking truth to liars and busting myths held by some unlearned posters here.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11990 Follow this site for a month or two and read up on PP. Incidently, Sanger was near totally against abortion whereas PP makes most of their private sector money off of killing babies….the balance coming mostly (their budget) from taxpayers.