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

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=516137&in_page_id=2&position=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 (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=502766&in_page_id=2), 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?"

:confused:

[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]

:confused:

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.

[Kimmik]

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


Actually it depends. Condoms that I require are not cheap.

I can understand household caps on benefits but to say because someone is poor that they can not have children?? Punish those that abuse the system, harshly. I have a friend who has 5 children and her family is on food stamps and I have gone shopping with her.
Does she buy soda, yes
Does she buy ice cream, yes
Does she buy chips and snacks, yes
Do they own a game system, yes

So from the first glimpse her family must be abusing the system right? She buys generic soda and they are rare treats. The ice cream is one of those huge vanilla buckets and they use that rather then milk and sugar in their plain oatmeal. Snack are also rare treats and the chips are for lunches. The Wii... well that took them over a year to get and they bought it used. Any games they get for the Wii are used and the children do things to earn the money for the games they also sell back games they dont use. They have nice clothes but they do a lot of Second hand store shopping and yard sales.

So should she give her children up because they are on state assistance? Should she be fixed because they fell on hard times? She goes without a lot so that her kids might get a 5 dollar movie because they did well at something, or at the beginning of school they all get a new pair of nice shoes. And let me tell you she is raising some shrewed shoppers.

It is always the dick wads that stand out, and who we notice. It is easy to spot those that flaunt the system and make us go screw it they must all be this way.

[Lace Neil Singer]

It's not so much having a game system and buying junk that makes a sponging family stand out, as it is one having luxuries that a working family could never afford in a million years. Also, the point is not "Poor people can't have children", but more "If you're on benefits, you should think about whether or not you personally can afford to pay for children before you choose to have another".

If, as a family, you are buying two bottles of whiskey, three crates of beer, a £50 carton of cigarettes and lobster at the supermarket; can afford two weeks in Magaluf for your summer holiday and a computer for each child with your benefits, then you're obviously getting far too much and need them cut.

Incidentally, I had a console as a child; however, I had to share mine with my two little brothers; it was all ours equally and had been a joint present for Christmas. That's a far cry from having three kids each with an expensive console paid for by benefits.

[blas87]

I was poor growing up as well. Wore almost competely hand me down (BOY!) clothes or second hand not so cool clothes until I was old enough to earn my own money, or for Christmas or my bday I'd get a little shopping trip. We had my cousin's old NES console and games. We had the occasional treats here and there.

Echoing Lace, again, it's NOT that poor people shouldn't have kids, it's using common sense in the fact that if you can barely feed and take care of yourself, why bring more kids into your world?

Just to bring my daily amount of sickening conservative view here, because I'm not me without it.....really, these women with multiple kids from multiple dads (and I'm talking more than a few kids) are really good examples as to why politicians are trying to put more limits on or attempt to yank benefits, along with generation welfare families, where a woman's mother and grandmother were also on welfare and they never strived for anything more.

This may be a little bit of a drift, but my "favorite" coworker, Drunken Victim, was recently whining about being sick, as always. When a chorus of all of us shouting "GO TO THE DOCTOR!" got an "I don't have insurance!" response from him (besides the fact it's about to be illegal not to), we asked him why he doesn't have ours at work. Oh, that's too expensive. I chirped "You should have Badger Care, since you and your gf have a kid and you're poor." and he responded that Badger Care usually doesn't give benefits to the FATHER of the kid(s), just the mother and the kid! What BS is that?!

[Racket_Man]

IThis may be a little bit of a drift, but my "favorite" coworker, Drunken Victim, was recently whining about being sick, as always. When a chorus of all of us shouting "GO TO THE DOCTOR!" got an "I don't have insurance!" response from him (besides the fact it's about to be illegal not to), we asked him why he doesn't have ours at work. Oh, that's too expensive. I chirped "You should have Badger Care, since you and your gf have a kid and you're poor." and he responded that Badger Care usually doesn't give benefits to the FATHER of the kid(s), just the mother and the kid! What BS is that?!

unfortuneately what he says is TRUE Blas. esp if the "Father" is being sued by the state or the "mother" for court ordered child support or the Mother is ALREADY receiving court ordered child support. the father can not received State Medicare (in Wis BadgerCare) or Food Stamps or welfare of any kind.

I guess the logic is that the "Father" must have a job that can be wage garnished and while under garishment all state bennies are blocked to prevent said father from just going on the dole and skipping out on support payments claiming to be "too poor" to make said payments. this is esp true when the "parents" are unmarried and really true esp if the mother "pops back" into the "fathers" life like 5 or 10 years after the child was conceived (and the father is totaly unaware of said child)


Fucked up logic but that is the rules here in Wisconsin

[smileyeagle1021]

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

Oh, no, it is entirely consistent, see they do want a smaller government because it will fit in the bedroom better, a large government may also have to take up the kitchen and the living room and we don't want that, but bedroom is just the perfect size ;)

As far as benefits for children, I'm a big fan of making all welfare benefits for children to be done like WIC. Put the money on cards that can only be used on approved food items (and I guess be expanded to include medical care and possibly school supplies). Then, tell the parents if at the end of the month there is any money left over, it gets rolled into a high yield savings plan that can only be redeemed for the child's higher education (be that at a vocation school or college or university).
My mother recieved welfare for me when I was growing up, but that was in the form of survivor benefits from Social Security. I got $1,000 a month and you know what she used it for? First she used it to pay any medical expenses, then she bought whatever school supplies she couldn't afford, and then any food that she couldn't afford, the rest (nearly half of it) went into a savings account for my college fund.
The taxpayers got the better end of that deal, my best estimate is that my father (and his employers) during his lifetime paid in over $200,000 to social security and I over 13 years pulled out $156,000 ($12,000 per year)... and now I'm able to go to school without taking further government payouts because so much of it was wisely invested. If every parent who received benefits for their children had the same attitude as my mother, then there would be a shitload less problems with welfare abuse and underfunding of higher education to boot.

Oh, and as to the OP, I do have to agree with the guys opinion, if you can't feed any more children, stop having children. It is cruel to expect child to grow up in a household where they can't even be guaranteed the essentials needed to survive.

[blas87]

When I worked at the gas station, I saw so many dirty, ragged, awful looking and smelling children, but their parents needed their smokes and beer more than Little Johnny needed a bath and clean clothes. It made me ill and seething with rage.