If you can't feed 'em, then don't breed 'em!

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/ar...moretopstories

One of our ministers has provoked a shitstorm by suggesting that people who are on benefits ought not to have children unless they can afford them, and that it's not fair to pop them out and expect the taxpayer to foot the bill.

[joe hx]

I'm not quite clear on this: is this his opinion, or is this a law he's trying to have instated?

If it's his opinion, I agree. However this isn't something I'd want the government to enforce. But I'm in the US not the UK so who knows....

[AdminAssistant]

Yeah, if it's his opinion, then it's one that I kinda share. The government can't enforce it, obviously, and they shouldn't. But if you're on government assistance, you need to get birth control or stop fucking.

[Anthony K. S.]

I read that linked article about the Davey family, and I was astounded by it.

42,000 pounds per year . . . That's about, what? $67,000 in U.S. dollars?

Seven children, with an eighth one on the way . . . Two vehicles, a four-bedroom house, with a computer, a 42-inch television with Sky TV, game consoles, four mobile phones . . . She's never had a job, and he quit his because he could make more money living on state benefits . . .

. . . and they're not only not grateful, but they're actually complaining about how hard they have it.

"It doesn't bother me that taxpayers are paying for me to have a large family," added Mrs Davey.

"We couldn't afford to care for our children without benefits, but as long as they have everything they need, I don't think I'm selfish."

You know, I don't even understand why this couple agreed to be interviewed for this article.

The whole time I was reading it, I kept wondering, "Don't they realize how bad this is going to look?"

[Greenday]

Ugh, this pisses me off to no end.

"Hey, I can't afford the three kids I have right now. Hell, can't even afford a damn condom! Let's have unprotected sex and have kids anyway."

[Hobbs]

Statistically, people on assistance don't have more children than people not on assistance. Yes there are people like this who abuse the system, but making a blanket policy of "abstinence or no benefits" is not only invasive, but humanitarianly wrong.

I am always astounded that those who complain about big government usually want policies like that, which would raise the invasiveness of government.

[Plaidman]

I'm one of the harsh ones for welfare.

There are far more abusers of the system then people that deserve it.

Like this family. That's the normal ones in my experence. Those are the ones I've seen daily at work. The scumbuckets that mooch of the system, and get angry when they run out of state benefits to buy beer with, so they use their child's cash benefits to buy it with.

People on welfare like that, should be given a choice. Give up all the kids into familys that can care for them, or get forced vesectomeys and hystemectoys.

[Eisa]

Opinion-wise, I can kind of agree with him, but I really don't see how it could be put into a law without screwing over the people on welfare who legitimately need it and AREN'T screwing the system.

[Kind of thinking of my sister right now, as she got a few various kinds of assistance--however, she did have a job until her postpartum depression and various other problems made her lose it...but...yeah.]

[fireheart17]

The only problem I see with it, is that it can turn into an issue of the classes. If there are people who rely on welfare due to illness/injury and are unable to continue working, should they be denied the right to have children? I mean, I'm not saying that they'll breed endlessly.

Too bad the governments wouldn't be able to put forward a task force of people who do government inspections to ensure that those on welfare aren't abusing it....(just saying, I doubt such an idea would work in practice, but it could be easy to see. You trash government housing? You get chucked out. You spend all your money on cigs and alcohol? Your welfare check gets cut off. Your kids being malnourished? And so on)

[Rapscallion]

It's only his opinion, but he's a cabinet minister (therefore influential) and he's in with a general drift of spending cuts that are going through the country after a new government took over. The last one is generally accepted as having spent a bit more than is wise (if you believe the papers that support the current lot), but the new lot are cutting benefits to groups like pensioners and orphans that other newspapers think are going tp tug the heart strings, yet not explain how much is going to come out of your pocket to pay for them.

Generally speaking, the papers are legenadrily selective in what they report and the truth often lies inbetween. I don't doubt that a pensioner or orphan is likely to receive less money, or that there are scroungers, or that the minister said this, but the papers certainly give the impression that it's everyone in a similar situation.

Rapscallion

[Racket_Man]

Seven children, with an eighth one on the way . . . Two vehicles, a four-bedroom house, with a computer, a 42-inch television with Sky TV, game consoles, four mobile phones . . . She's never had a job, and he quit his because he could make more money living on state benefits . . .

. . . and they're not only not grateful, but they're actually complaining about how hard they have it.
[/I]

you should see some of the places I deliver to that I know are getting welfare bennies. they ALL seem to have better stuff than I can afford. maybe not a 4 bedroom house but yes two vehicles, loaded cable, high speed internet, multipule phones (several new records on our POS for the SAME address), the big TV, etc.

when I lived in Chicago year ago I would encounter (on a regular basis) women who had how ever many kids ALL WITH A DIFFERENT LAST NAME. Ahhhh I just got knocked up again. what the hell the STATE will take care of that for me (meaning more $$$$'s more food stamps more whatever)

It did get to the point that the state was seriously considering placing a limit on how many kids they would cover under welfare, foodstamps, TANF, etc.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I'd agree with the opinion. He's not saying that people can't have large families, but that if they want them, then they should pay for them; not just sit around on their fat arses and expect the taxpayers to support their brood.

I was one of four children growing up. My parents both worked; my mother was a childminder, so she could stay at home. My mum got child benefit, but made sure that it went on us, not on luxuries.

I personally think that any family who can afford holidays to Magaluf, wide screen TVs and four mobile phones on their benefits and who think that they're entitled to grab as much benefit as they want should have their benefits cut. It just is a slap in the face to everyone who works rather than scrounges, and makes a mockery of the idea that welfare is a temporary system, not a lifestyle choice. If these people want all that stuff, then they can get off their backsides and work for it, like the rest of us do.

[Rapscallion]

My one problem with any sudden capping is that it's likely to cause hardship on people who thought their children were going to be looked after. After over a decade of left wingers in power, who are now saying that every child should have the benefit no matter the income of their parents, they had a reasonable expectation that it would continue.

However, I have to agree - if you have a low income or even zero, the onus should be on seeking more work, not fucking like bunnies. Sure, shag if you want, but at least take precautions. You can't support that many children reasonably and you shouldn't expect everyone else around you to support over a certain number of children.

Rapscallion

[blas87]

I don't know about everywhere else, but Planned Parenthood is an easy way to get cheap/free birth control. Condoms are not expensive.

I hate when people get all "It's MY freedom!" and outcry "Government invasion!" when it's common sense.....if you can't afford to even feed or take care of yourself, why are you still adament on having kids or not doing anything to prevent having them?

I'm not really in favor of forcing people sterile because they are poor or on assistance, but there really ought to be something done about women who have 8 kids with 8 different dads, families on welfare since child 1, now on child number 9, etc.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Also, if a family can get oodles of luxuries like foriegn holidays and Wiis on benefits, then they're obviously getting too much. It's also unfair on people who are genuinely in need for spongers like the family featured to be given massive handouts.

Maybe the kids of people like this should be fostered if their parents are claiming they can't afford to feed them with a cap? It'll mean that the kids won't suffer; and the shock of temporarily losing their brood might be the kick up the backside their scrounging parents need.