“Somebody need to pay for my 15 kids” Wed Jan 9, 2013 5:42pm 15 416 views Watch this video, and imagine the government taking your guns… HERE Tweet 15 Responses to ““Somebody need to pay for my 15 kids”” ottnott January 9, 2013 at 6:32 pm I tried to imagine making the logical leap you wanted us to take with you, but it always ended up looking like Evel Kineivel’s attempted jump over the Snake River. drummerboy January 11, 2013 at 7:16 am at least kinevil made the attempt. JakeGint January 11, 2013 at 8:58 am Logic not being the Left’s strong suit. Perhaps one door over, at “Emotional Reaction?” ________ ottnott January 11, 2013 at 12:50 pm What is this sulfurous roar from the depths? A balrog? No, just Jake venturing up from deeeeep in the bubble – down where President Elect Herman Cain is preparing to take office after soundly defeating the Democratic candidate, Adolf Marx, and Real Americans have risen up to drive all the unarmed hippies into the sea. (In the event that hippies prove scarce, Prius drivers will have to do) drummerboy January 10, 2013 at 7:40 am in some states,thats 15 hundo a month per child. add it up in a years time,and thats more”salary” than most folks make. think carpenter, electrician,etc,etc, all in all, between the system gamers, and the illegals that come here to learn how to game the system,costs us over 2 trill a year………i work all my life, and ALL of my 40 hours went to taxes every week because of the overtime i put in everyweek. and now they want to fuck us out of so-sec on top of it,for the likes of this cunt………FUCK YOU ottnott January 10, 2013 at 3:03 pm LOL at $1500/mo per child. The video appears to be from a Tampa, FL, station. Florida’s TANF benefits for a single-parent family of 3 is just $303 per month for the entire family. That’s the same dollar amount the state offered in 1996, by the way, so inflation-adjusted benefits have dropped almost 30% over the last 15 years. The state with the highest TANF benefits as of 2011 was Alaska, and there a single-parent family of 3 gets only $923/mo. total. As with Florida, the benefit amount in Alaska is the same as it was 15 years ago. The Fly January 10, 2013 at 4:28 pm qed formerlydmg January 10, 2013 at 4:51 pm Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is just one of the MANY sources of income for these low/no income gems of society. drummerboy January 11, 2013 at 7:14 am single parent with 3 kids gets almost 672 dollars a month just for food stamps.now how bout the rent, now how bout their free phone.now how bout assistance in paying gas and electric. how fucking much would it cost you to live here in chicago with you paying all this yourself……add it up OTT…….lol oh,and dont forget the cash that is put on their cards,,,,,,,,,ya know,because you can’t buy toilet paper and makeup on a snap card. go ahead add it up!!!!!!!!! or stfu ! ottnott January 11, 2013 at 1:06 pm You get to throw out a number and I have to add it up for you? Okay. I get well under half the $1500/kid you claimed, and the marginal per kid amount is about one-fifth of your number. The “cash that is put on their cards” is the TANF payments I mentioned above. A large majority of assistance benefits are non-cash. ottnott January 10, 2013 at 5:18 pm “these low/no income gems of society” Formerly known as “children”. Yes, our taxes give them a roof, food, healthcare, and education. JakeGint January 11, 2013 at 9:04 am I believe the reference was to the child producers who are burdening society with their lack of responsibility. But hey, I understand. “For the children*” covers up 80 years of leftist waste, institutionalized poverty and ruined lives. And look how much political power you’ve received in exchange! Win, win, right Otts? *(I just can’t wait until they start using it justify womb scraping payments to Planned Parenthood.) _________ drummerboy January 11, 2013 at 9:33 am womb scraping? i’m dyin ova hea,stop…. ottnott January 11, 2013 at 1:32 pm Voters and their representatives choose what is and isn’t a taxpayer burden. The burden here is created by policies expressing our preference not to let children suffer from exposure, starvation, lack of medical care, etc. Or, you might say the burden results from our preference not to let the government choose who can and cannot breed. Or, you might recognize that the burden results from the combination of the above preferences interacting with the effects of many other preferences we express through public policies that, individually, enjoy majority support. As outrageous as it is to see a people bearing child after child that they cannot begin to provide for, cases like that are part of the price we pay to maintain our overall set of preferences. If we don’t like the price, we can (and have – especially with the 1996 welfare reform) tweak the policies that most directly affect the price we pay. Meanwhile, other tweaks to other policies will interfere with the welfare tweaks and vice versa. Outrage can be targeted precisely, but policy cannot. formerlydmg January 11, 2013 at 2:17 pm Back to the Netherlands with you, Ductchboy. Comments are closed.