The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: menorman on May 18, 2012, 09:13:22 PM
-
This guy (http://now.msn.com/money/0518-man-30-kids-child-support.aspx) could sure use some Mustachianism. Where to even begin?
-
"Hatchett last appeared in court in May 2009, when he had a paltry 21 kids to his name and said he had no intention of having more. Somehow, he found a way to add nine more to his legacy, so we're guessing he probably isn't done at 30."
Where to even begin?
Castration.
-
"Hatchett last appeared in court in May 2009, when he had a paltry 21 kids to his name and said he had no intention of having more. Somehow, he found a way to add nine more to his legacy, so we're guessing he probably isn't done at 30."
Where to even begin?
Castration.
That may be too extreme. How about sterilization? ;)
The guy clearly is an idiot. 9 more kids in 3 years? Some of them only get $1.49/month in child support? I don't know why he thinks he needs help, clearly if the state was going to help with the child support it should all go to upping the kid's benefits, and he'd get the same take-home.
He probably can't even remember the names of half his kids. What a shame.
-
It's a safe bet that with so little help from him, the eleven mothers cannot raise their families without help. Most alarming is what his profligacy is costing everyone else: the innocent children, their mothers, and taxpayers.
-
And the women never heard of birth control? I don't blame the man entirely for this situation. But given the current political climate, maybe the women never did hear of birth control. (Gnashes teeth).
-
"Hatchett last appeared in court in May 2009, when he had a paltry 21 kids to his name and said he had no intention of having more. Somehow, he found a way to add nine more to his legacy, so we're guessing he probably isn't done at 30."
Where to even begin?
Castration.
That may be too extreme. How about sterilization? ;)
The guy clearly is an idiot. 9 more kids in 3 years? Some of them only get $1.49/month in child support? I don't know why he thinks he needs help, clearly if the state was going to help with the child support it should all go to upping the kid's benefits, and he'd get the same take-home.
He probably can't even remember the names of half his kids. What a shame.
I'm guessing that the state already helps with child support by funding a plethora of programs for low-income individuals. I of course have no information on the kids/women mentioned, but I think it's safe to say that none of the mothers are making enough to be much above the poverty level if at all. Therefore, they're almost assuredly on some sort of government assistance program or another. Someone should probably point that out to him as he travels to the second job he needs to be taking up yesterday.
-
"And the women never heard of birth control? I don't blame the man entirely for this situation."
Excellent point, mugwump, and great name, too!
I considered this angle, but overall it feels to me that this individual (notice that I am not referring to him as a MAN) was PROUD of his behavior as he sired all these children DELIBERATELY. Sure, the women could have made better choices, but maybe he fed them a fine line o' bullshit and they believed he was their happy ever after. Four kids in one year? Twice? Oy vey. Whole lotta lyin' goin' on.
Have you noticed how obsessed with celebrity babies the media has become? Maybe these women were trying to become the (misguided) stars of their own lives. Heartbreaking story.
-
I read the story to my husband yesterday and he was on the "sterilize" side of things. I think he has a right to have as many kids as he wants so long as he has women foolish enough to agree to be with him. The fact that he can't afford to contribute at least 50% of the costs to raise his children is obvious but as far as I know he isn't breaking any laws. If the adultery laws were still on the books you could get him for that I guess. The media and commentators are in a rush to condemn him but it takes two, or in this case 11 women who need to be held responsible as well. Can they prove that they're earning at least 50% of what it takes to raise their kids or are they just waiting at home for the checks to roll it? I don't see any difference in having one child you can't financially support or having 50. There aren't any actual laws that I know of to charge any of these people with attempting to defraud the government or with negligence. If there were we'd be seeing all kinds of good people drawn through litigation when they fall on some hard times and need a little help. If we start making societal rules about how much money you need to have before you're allowed to have a child, it would be disastrous and sad. The Paris Hiltons of the country would be propagating in the dozens while your Autistic mechanic cousin would never be permitted to have a one. So what can be done?