Can't afford his 30 kids but says he needs a break from child support.
 

And Al still thinks it's difficult to get laid. The guy can be a complete dead beat loser and some women will still line up.

The idea is that he still needs some money to live on but he's only making, officially anyway, $8.50 per hour and probably isn't even working full time. More than likely he is keeping a part time job so he is officially paying something (though only something like $1.50 per kid per month) while his "real" job is probably something illegal and under the table so the government can't take his money.

Maybe he's talking about Polygamy...

2 examples of selfish degenerates is all you can come up with ?

The kids should be sent to an orphanage. This way you don't have to pay welfare to the mom, and the guy can take a break.

This man can't be allowed to continue riding the half-of-minimum-wage gravy train. We must cut his balls off.

Are you a member of the Nazi party by any chance?

(In before "Godwin" http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/rolleyes.gif)

Do you want to:

1. castrate him
2. enslave him and force him to work even more
3. cut off welfare for the children who need it

I guess we should wonder why the poor are allowed to reproduce at all http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/rolleyes.gif

Basically "screw the children, they should either be destitute or separated from their parents" is your position. I think the status quo is vastly preferable. Teen pregnancies are in decline. I really don't think welfare pays enough to make one parent families preferable.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

"Let them die and decrease the surplus.", said the same philosopher.

Did you ever think that maybe he's surviving by living with the women he's knocking up? If he gets tired of one, he can move in with another, and knock her up too. He could just be charismatic and dangerous.

How about some evidence that people are actually churning out babies so that they can get the welfare benefits. Yeah, I'm sure a single mother on welfare is living large. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/bored.gif

You sound like a Republican. Maybe HC hacked your account.

Of course, I'd also have free abortion on demand because a $200 abortion is less than one month's food stamps much less 18 years of food stamps per child. Let them abort, says I. The accounting is right though mandatory depro would be a better option as it's only like $60 per half year.

You still haven't provided any evidence that people on welfare actually profit from having another child.

The TANF families averaged 2 recipient children, which is consistent with the data from recent years. Three in every four families had only one or two children. Seventy percent of families had only one adult recipient (single family head of household), and 7 percent included two or more adult recipients. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/...ess/tanfp7.htm
As you can clearly see families on welfare are not having an extraordinary number of children.

I am reading it now and so far have found this:
The New Jersey findings are consistent with a parallel pre-post analysis and suggest the state’s policies reduced births by 9-12 percent but also increased abortions among new applicants by 14 percent. That would make sense. If a woman simply can't afford to raise another child she might have it aborted even though she would rather not. Basically what Oerdin proposed in post #29. So it is possible that welfare can influence fertility, although I'm a bit surprised that people want to change policy in a way that encourages more abortions.

How many debates do you have to lose miserably in a day before you give up?

You just did. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif

Want? Policy was changed that way in the late 90's.

How do we know that part of this isn't the aristocracy?