Don't Expect Us To Pay Benefits For Unlimited Babies, Says Minister - Big Families Won't Be Supported On Welfare

[Big Orange]

We've been pushed into a trap where the most irresponsible and stupid disproportionately have the most kids, but it will take decades to address properly - sudden cuts would make things worse, with mothers and babies potentially thrown on the streets and that won't really stop many dumb/desperate people without real shelter from having too many kids (look at the most miserable, ramshackled Third World refugee camps and shanty towns for hard to argue against evidence).

[Harry Sacks]

Anyone see a shortage of anything out there?

Empty shelves?

Bread lines?

Or do you see excess?

All manner of marginal need goods?

Cheap clothes?

Cheap food?

Fat people?

Or are you helping to ensure artificial scarcity and human suffering with your banker masters?

[Executive Sadman]

Wont happen. All the muslims have a dozen or so kids apiece, will be considered racist by the barmy left (ie labour, libdems and two thirds of the tory party) .

[marko]

Anyone see a shortage of anything out there?

Empty shelves?

Bread lines?

Or do you see excess?

All manner of marginal need goods?

Cheap clothes?

Cheap food?

Fat people?

Or are you helping to ensure artificial scarcity and human suffering with your banker masters?

The bankers can p1ss off - they are a separate issue; I want to see them stripped of their uniquely profitable and risk-free position in society, and made to work for a reasonable wage like the rest of us.

Back to the topic in hand, calling the concept of being responsible for the fruit of your loins 'abhorent' really sums up everything that is wrong with this f**ked up country - Jesus what a mess Labour left behind, not just financially but also in terms of social mores, norms and morality.

People who can't afford to have kids - should not have f**king kids! Is it a human right? What about my human right to not pay for all the assorted dross and scum that are breeding like rats in this country!?! The Labour legacy is just a bunch of different special interest groups loudly moaning and griping, backed up by 'experts' who can be relied on to defend their interests in a high profile way (mainly because they make a living out of the special interest group), and the story is ALWAYS EXACTLY AS FOLLOWS:

Moan moan moan, whinge whinge whinge, it's not my fault it's not my responsibility, etc, etc, etc.....WHERE'S MY FREE MONEY?

The welfare state was originally envisaged as a safety net to catch people who through outrageous fortune had fallen on hard times....it is now a lifestyle choice for many people who have completely forgotten the concept of personal responsibility. JUST LIKE THE BANKERS they expect to be able to socialise the consequences of their questionable choices onto everyone else. It has to end.

[dissident junk]

We did not get into this situation where by the more you breed the more you get over night , it has taken maybe 40 years + . They will not just stop it over night .

I am not too sure I agree with this.

It is purely anecdotal this, but when I was young in the 70s, it was an oddity for someone to have more than two siblings, and I grew up in a pretty crappy Northern town. Even the single teen mums back then only had one, and then went to work when their baby went to school. You had to go back to the 20s and 30s to find more than three kids as a common phenomenon.

Seems to my eyes that this more than "three kids" thing is pretty recent, and I can't help feeling tax credits have influenced decisions to extend families.

[Harry Sacks]

The bankers can p1ss off - they are a separate issue; I want to see them stripped of their uniquely profitable and risk-free position in society, and made to work for a reasonable wage like the rest of us.

Back to the topic in hand, calling the concept of being responsible for the fruit of your loins 'abhorent' really sums up everything that is wrong with this f**ked up country - Jesus what a mess Labour left behind, not just financially but also in terms of social mores, norms and morality.

People who can't afford to have kids - should not have f**king kids! Is it a human right? What about my human right to not pay for all the assorted dross and scum that are breeding like rats in this country!?! The Labour legacy is just a bunch of different special interest groups loudly moaning and griping, backed up by 'experts' who can be relied on to defend their interests in a high profile way (mainly because they make a living out of the special interest group), and the story is ALWAYS EXACTLY AS FOLLOWS:

Moan moan moan, whinge whinge whinge, it's not my fault it's not my responsibility, etc, etc, etc.....WHERE'S MY FREE MONEY?

The welfare state was originally envisaged as a safety net to catch people who through outrageous fortune had fallen on hard times....it is now a lifestyle choice for many people who have completely forgotten the concept of personal responsibility. JUST LIKE THE BANKERS they expect to be able to socialise the consequences of their questionable choices onto everyone else. It has to end.

These measures will just ensure a lower standard of living for everyone.

Work doesn't pay.

There was a time when an education gave you a better chance - it's gone.

And how do we justify creating more jobs, to do what, load up more landfill tips?

The solution is to stop the private monetary system inflating prices by securing debt against homes.

[OnionTerror]

The bankers can p1ss off - they are a separate issue; I want to see them stripped of their uniquely profitable and risk-free position in society, and made to work for a reasonable wage like the rest of us.

Back to the topic in hand, calling the concept of being responsible for the fruit of your loins 'abhorent' really sums up everything that is wrong with this f**ked up country - Jesus what a mess Labour left behind, not just financially but also in terms of social mores, norms and morality.

People who can't afford to have kids - should not have f**king kids! Is it a human right? What about my human right to not pay for all the assorted dross and scum that are breeding like rats in this country!?! The Labour legacy is just a bunch of different special interest groups loudly moaning and griping, backed up by 'experts' who can be relied on to defend their interests in a high profile way (mainly because they make a living out of the special interest group), and the story is ALWAYS EXACTLY AS FOLLOWS:

Moan moan moan, whinge whinge whinge, it's not my fault it's not my responsibility, etc, etc, etc.....WHERE'S MY FREE MONEY?

The welfare state was originally envisaged as a safety net to catch people who through outrageous fortune had fallen on hard times....it is now a lifestyle choice for many people who have completely forgotten the concept of personal responsibility. JUST LIKE THE BANKERS they expect to be able to socialise the consequences of their questionable choices onto everyone else. It has to end.

Trouble is that this situation has been building for decades....we don't teach proper sex education in schools any more....We are still far too prudish about that sort of thing...We need to catch these kids as soon as possible...

http://sexperienceuk.channel4.com/sex-education/season/archives/season-3

Teaching them at 11 is far too late. Kids are at it by then.

One option I heard about is to get very young mothers to live together in dorms, with a sort of Matron figure looking after them.. The benefit dependency does need to drop, but will doing it in one fowl swoop just end up harming children?

[marko]

These measures will just ensure a lower standard of living for everyone.

Work doesn't pay.

There was a time when an education gave you a better chance - it's gone.

And how do we justify creating more jobs, to do what, load up more landfill tips?

The solution is to stop the private monetary system inflating prices by securing debt against homes.

I fundamentally disagree: education does give you a better chance - a country of educated (technically, morally, politically) people (e.g. the UK, Germany) can sustain a complex society which keeps people warm and fed, mobile phones etc. A country with a poor level of education (e.g. Burkina Faso) is a shit-hole. I want to live in a society of educated, enlightened people who accept responsibility for themselves. It is a lovely concept to ensure everyone is looked after using a welfare state, but we need to make damned sure that it does not become a cradle which fills up with more and more infantilised people who choose not to contribute to society. Which is what happened under NewLabour by the way, indeed they actively encouraged for some reason.

[Big Orange]

Wont happen. All the muslims have a dozen or so kids apiece, will be considered racist by the barmy left (ie labour, libdems and two thirds of the tory party) .

Oh shut up you Neo-Nazi scumbag, the Islamic conquest of Europe is a scare story that's been blown wide open.

A safety net has been misused as a hammock by chav women, however why wage economic war on the harmlessly inept when the more destructive parasites are the bankers and other corporate leaders?

Edited October 7, 2010 by Big Orange

[dissident junk]

So do you sterilise each parent after two?...isn't that the only way you actually physically stop them having kids?

Not everyone will play by the rules..no matter what the rules are....many will have loads of kids no matter what the obstacles are..

In the late 60s and early 70s, there used to be an unofficial policy that the NHS would offer to sterilise women after the birth of their fifth child while they were still in hospital.

[marko]

Oh shut up you Neo-Nazi scumbag, the Islamic conquest of Europe is a scare story that's been blown wide open.

A safety net has been misused as a hammock by chav women, however why wage economic war on the harmlessly inept when the more destructive parasites are the bankers and other corporate leaders?

Don't worry, I have plenty of bile for both the bankers and the chav single mothers!

The point is, they are both extracting wealth from the middle.

[Game_Over]

I'd do it before.

Licence reproduction.

But probably needs to be done worldwide.

Not necessary

If the state only gives benefit claimants money for 2 kids - they will have precisely 2 kids

because if they have 3 it will then reduce the amount of money they have left to pay for sky TV, booze and fags

[miko]

I am not too sure I agree with this.

It is purely anecdotal this, but when I was young in the 70s, it was an oddity for someone to have more than two siblings, and I grew up in a pretty crappy Northern town. Even the single teen mums back then only had one, and then went to work when their baby went to school. You had to go back to the 20s and 30s to find more than three kids as a common phenomenon.

Seems to my eyes that this more than "three kids" thing is pretty recent, and I can't help feeling tax credits have influenced decisions to extend families.

When i was young in the 70's , more than two kids was quite common . But most of the parents were working . Unmarried mums were only just starting to be acceptable.

It was in the 70's that the rules were changed and they went to the front of the housing queue. So it is about 40 years that the system has been gathering pace.

Divorce was also becoming normal, kids at school would admit their parents had divorced instead of saying their dad had gone to work on an oil rig.

Do remember one friend who's Dad had gone oil rig working he was the eldest of seven and got new shoes more often than other kids . Maybe his mum could afford new shoes unlike the other mums as he also got free school meals that the other mums had to pay for. It was all kept a bit quite back then and not a lot was said by anyone . The difference today is the people taking the money shout about it as their right.

[Game_Over]

Oh shut up you Neo-Nazi scumbag, the Islamic conquest of Europe is a scare story that's been blown wide open.

A safety net has been misused as a hammock by chav women, however why wage economic war on the harmlessly inept when the more destructive parasites are the bankers and other corporate leaders?

They paid for Nu Labours Socialist client state.

And you are being led by the nose by politicians who WANT YOU to blame the bankers

[Game_Over]

I fundamentally disagree: education does give you a better chance - a country of educated (technically, morally, politically) people (e.g. the UK, Germany) can sustain a complex society which keeps people warm and fed, mobile phones etc. A country with a poor level of education (e.g. Burkina Faso) is a shit-hole. I want to live in a society of educated, enlightened people who accept responsibility for themselves. It is a lovely concept to ensure everyone is looked after using a welfare state, but we need to make damned sure that it does not become a cradle which fills up with more and more infantilised people who choose not to contribute to society. Which is what happened under NewLabour by the way, indeed they actively encouraged for some reason.

Because the more benefit dependent morons there are, the more Labour voters there will be.

And the longer Nu Labour were in power the richer they could make themselves.

[bogbrush]

Trouble is that this situation has been building for decades....we don't teach proper sex education in schools any more....We are still far too prudish about that sort of thing...We need to catch these kids as soon as possible...

http://sexperienceuk.channel4.com/sex-education/season/archives/season-3

So lack of sex education causes pregnancies? Are you for real on this?

There was no sex education at my Liverpool Comprehensive school (in the 70's) and if I recall correctly 1 pregnant girl at aschool of >1000.

Teaching them at 11 is far too late. Kids are at it by then.

One option I heard about is to get very young mothers to live together in dorms, with a sort of Matron figure looking after them.. The benefit dependency does need to drop, but will doing it in one fowl swoop just end up harming children?

Eggs and Omlettes, although what you describe does not sound like "harm" to the baby to me.

If you can find another way to get out of this sh1t mess I'm all ears.

Edited October 7, 2010 by bogbrush

[miko]

Trouble is that this situation has been building for decades....we don't teach proper sex education in schools any more....We are still far too prudish about that sort of thing...We need to catch these kids as soon as possible...

http://sexperienceuk.channel4.com/sex-education/season/archives/season-3

Teaching them at 11 is far too late. Kids are at it by then.

One option I heard about is to get very young mothers to live together in dorms, with a sort of Matron figure looking after them.. The benefit dependency does need to drop, but will doing it in one fowl swoop just end up harming children?

Education is not just about sex education , education is about the people knowing at present that the more kids they have the more money they get.

It's about the reward. We do not reward people for work especially at the lower end of earnings , we still tax them far to high , but we reward them for getting pregnant.

As i said in a previous post , we have the most single parent's in Europe and pay the highest benefits for doing that . Italy give no benefits to single mums and have the least amount in Europe.

Wonder what sex education they have in Italy's schools.

Just to add when I was 11 and we had a bit of sex education there was only one girl in the class who did not already know how babies were born. Funny enough she was the only one who had a baby while at school , don't think it was due to anything other than bad luck and a teenage fu-- up. ( accident's like that will always happen ) benefits or not. However that is different to the system we have today where having kids is a career choice.

[hilltop]

Because the more benefit dependent morons there are, the more Labour voters there will be.

And the longer Nu Labour were in power the richer they could make themselves.

You are choosing to overlook the great failure of Labour's last 13 years. Instead of enabling people on lower incomes it was the already rich who prospered most and increased their share of the nation's wealth.

Why should the poorest kids suffer more?

[Executive Sadman]

Oh shut up you Neo-Nazi scumbag, the Islamic conquest of Europe is a scare story that's been blown wide open.

A safety net has been misused as a hammock by chav women, however why wage economic war on the harmlessly inept when the more destructive parasites are the bankers and other corporate leaders?

Theres a difference between hating muslims and realizing they are used as a pawn to stop or allow policy changes.

You should educate yourself on the difference, or else you may end up a pawn.

[eightiesgirly]

Just a boring anecdotal, my daughters are in their late teens, most of their mates are at college and university and have no kids.

About half of the girls they went to high school with started out with a minimum wage job, nursery assistant, waitress etc.

The ones who took a minimum wage job didn't even manage a year before having a baby, they saw it as a way to not have to work in a dead end job and the only way to be able to leave home, doing so on a minimum wage was impossible.

Of the mothers, susequent children were produced to be able to get a house rather than a flat or upgrade to a bigger house. Very few of the fathers are still around and several have denied any responsibility for the kids.

Some of the girls appear caring mothers in my humble opinon , but I personally know one that has never called her child anything else but 'the little s**t'

Edited October 7, 2010 by eightiesgirly

[bogbrush]

You are choosing to overlook the great failure of Labour's last 13 years. Instead of enabling people on lower incomes it was the already rich who prospered most and increased their share of the nation's wealth.

Why should the poorest kids suffer more?

We know what you don't like, but what's your solution?

[miko]

You are choosing to overlook the great failure of Labour's last 13 years. Instead of enabling people on lower incomes it was the already rich who prospered most and increased their share of the nation's wealth.

Why should the poorest kids suffer more?

If anything it is the ones in the middle who have suffered the most .

The rich kids will always be ok mummy and daddy will always see to that , no matter who is in power and what policys are put in place.

The kids termed the poorest kids ( how do we define poorest ) parents on benefits have done ok over the last 30 + years.

The kids in the middle have suffered. 30+ years ago kid from average working dad , had mum at home she might work part time pin money they would call it. Today kid average earning dad , mum has to work full time as well. This is the only group who have gone backwards recently not the richer or the poorest.

[Goat]

Trouble is that this situation has been building for decades....we don't teach proper sex education in schools any more....We are still far too prudish about that sort of thing...We need to catch these kids as soon as possible...

They're not getting pregnant because they don't know how to put a condom on or swallow a pill; they're not having the babies because they don't know about abortions.

They're having kids becuase the state pays them to; change that and the problem disapears.

[Game_Over]

You are choosing to overlook the great failure of Labour's last 13 years. Instead of enabling people on lower incomes it was the already rich who prospered most and increased their share of the nation's wealth.

Why should the poorest kids suffer more?

I think you will find that if you pay poor people to have 10 kids each you will end up with a lot more poor kids than when you started

And this is exactly what has happened - child poverty has increased - not decreased

And it has absolutely nothing to do with bankers getting million pound bonuses

apart from the fact that it was the tax from banking that paid for the benefits used by Labour to trap people in poverty.

[Game_Over]

They're not getting pregnant because they don't know how to put a condom on or swallow a pill; they're not having the babies because they don't know about abortions.

They're having kids becuase the state pays them to; change that and the problem disapears.

This is so bloody obvious you would think that everyone would have realised this by now

EVEN the politicians have now worked this out and the majority of them are utter dimwits