Can't afford his 30 kids but says he needs a break from child support.

[giblets]

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/data-reports/congress/tanfp7.htm

As you can clearly see families on welfare are not having an extraordinary number of children.

[Dinner]

Post #30.

[giblets]

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.

[giblets]

Subgroup analyses for desired, but not actual, fertility again show that important subgroup impacts can underlie slight overall impacts. Overall, ABC had no impact on actual fertility by the time of the survey. Among initially fecund women, the percent who either gave birth to a child conceived after random assignment or were pregnant at the time of the survey was 14 percent in both the treatment and control groups (see Exhibit 6).

. . .

Although it had little immediate impact on actual fertility, ABC markedly diminished enthusiam for having more children in several subgroups. Overall, the percent wanting more children was five points lower among treatment (39 percent) than among control (44 percent) group members, a difference falling just short of the threshold for statistical significance. However, substantial impacts on desired fertility are evident among women who were 25 years of age or older (9-percentage point impact), women who had ever been married (13-point impact), and those with intermediate welfare histories (11-point impact).

So, uh, there's hardly any impact on actual fertility but women who do get pregnant are more unhappy about it? Wonderful.

[Wiglaf]

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

[giblets]

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

It's not possible to lose miserably in an argument with Oerdin.

[Dinner]

You just did.

[giblets]

You just did.

You failed to back up your assertions and instead cited a .pdf that Dinodoc linked to that also does not support your assertions. Of course, you probably didn't read a single word of it.

[DinoDoc]

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.

[giblets]

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

Oerdin still wants change. See post #20.

[MRT144]

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?

[kittenOFchaos]

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

They have silly made up jobs.

[Proteus_MST]

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

2. sounds great, this way we can prevent him from making more children without having to castrate him ... if he spends all of his time with hard labor, he doesn´t have the free time and energy to father more children

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Let he who hasn't indiscriminately fathered a legion of bastards cast the first stone.

[onodera]

You know, chemical castration as a prerequisite to welfare sounds like a better solution than putting kids in the orphanage. How expensive is it?