[stunnyravytal]

And Al still thinks it's difficult to get laid. The guy can be a complete dead beat loser and some women will still line up.

[bp9QxekG]

The idea is that he still needs some money to live on but he's only making, officially anyway, $8.50 per hour and probably isn't even working full time. More than likely he is keeping a part time job so he is officially paying something (though only something like $1.50 per kid per month) while his "real" job is probably something illegal and under the table so the government can't take his money.

[Phassetus]

Maybe he's talking about Polygamy...

[Mboxmaja]

2 examples of selfish degenerates is all you can come up with ?

[enlinnyGoob]

The kids should be sent to an orphanage. This way you don't have to pay welfare to the mom, and the guy can take a break.

[FourEsters]

This man can't be allowed to continue riding the half-of-minimum-wage gravy train. We must cut his balls off.

[LorencoLoricelli]

Are you a member of the Nazi party by any chance?

(In before "Godwin" )

[HcMkOKiz]

Groan. How feeble.

Do you want to:

1. castrate him
2. enslave him and force him to work even more
3. cut off welfare for the children who need it

I guess we should wonder why the poor are allowed to reproduce at all

[GfBTWMmV]

Basically "screw the children, they should either be destitute or separated from their parents" is your position. I think the status quo is vastly preferable. Teen pregnancies are in decline. I really don't think welfare pays enough to make one parent families preferable.

[Nikitka]

The first thing that needs to happen is removing the incentive to have more kids in order to get more welfare. Do what Texas does and cap it at 2-3 kids after which if you have more kids you don't get more welfare. Yes, that will mean less per kid making life difficult but it should be enough for them to survive and if not then the kids could always be taken by child protective services if their mother (I won't even pretend the father is involved with them) doesn't take care of them. It's a crappy situation but they put themselves in that position deliberately to try to work the welfare system. The abuse needs to stop.

[wrewsTear]

"Let them die and decrease the surplus.", said the same philosopher.

[Argurnenoni]

Did you ever think that maybe he's surviving by living with the women he's knocking up? If he gets tired of one, he can move in with another, and knock her up too. He could just be charismatic and dangerous.

[Edifsdubs]

The first thing that needs to happen is removing the incentive to have more kids in order to get more welfare. Do what Texas does and cap it at 2-3 kids after which if you have more kids you don't get more welfare. Yes, that will mean less per kid making life difficult but it should be enough for them to survive and if not then the kids could always be taken by child protective services if their mother (I won't even pretend the father is involved with them) doesn't take care of them. It's a crappy situation but they put themselves in that position deliberately to try to work the welfare system. The abuse needs to stop.

How about some evidence that people are actually churning out babies so that they can get the welfare benefits. Yeah, I'm sure a single mother on welfare is living large.

You sound like a Republican. Maybe HC hacked your account.

[Unhappu]

Of course, I'd also have free abortion on demand because a $200 abortion is less than one month's food stamps much less 18 years of food stamps per child. Let them abort, says I. The accounting is right though mandatory depro would be a better option as it's only like $60 per half year.

[Sydrothcoathy]

They're not living large but if you're on welfare it's the only way to get more money out of the welfare system. Yes, there is a lot of abuse built into the system. Free birth control in the form of something which is not optional (like a depro shot for women and a male equivalent if possible) should be mandatory for all welfare recipients. Further more there must, I mean must, be a cap on how much a single person can get no matter how many children they have. Also if you have more kids while on welfare you should get nothing additional since you knew the rules going in.

You still haven't provided any evidence that people on welfare actually profit from having another child.

The TANF families averaged 2 recipient children, which is consistent with the data from recent years. Three in every four families had only one or two children. Seventy percent of families had only one adult recipient (single family head of household), and 7 percent included two or more adult recipients. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/...ess/tanfp7.htm
As you can clearly see families on welfare are not having an extraordinary number of children.

[marcusdexz]

Welfare reform. Anyway, grib. This study seems to suggest that the welfare system and how it is structured can influence the childbearing and living decisions of poor women.

I am reading it now and so far have found this:
The New Jersey findings are consistent with a parallel pre-post analysis and suggest the state’s policies reduced births by 9-12 percent but also increased abortions among new applicants by 14 percent. That would make sense. If a woman simply can't afford to raise another child she might have it aborted even though she would rather not. Basically what Oerdin proposed in post #29. So it is possible that welfare can influence fertility, although I'm a bit surprised that people want to change policy in a way that encourages more abortions.

[hujdrftgkas]

How many debates do you have to lose miserably in a day before you give up?

[heltduell]

You just did.

[Wahwlsnt]

So it is possible that welfare can influence fertility, although I'm a bit surprised that people want to change policy in a way that encourages more abortions.

Want? Policy was changed that way in the late 90's.

[slimsex]

It wouldn't take long to add more examples, but it unnecessary and wouldn't convince you anyway. If I put 10 examples would that make a difference? 50? 100? 1000?

In Britain it is safe to say 100,000s are on Welfare as they're better off doing that than working.

Two minutes looking: "264,000 households in the UK where no one has ever worked."

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press...0-110810.shtml

How do we know that part of this isn't the aristocracy?