Orca I asked how you would wish to deal with the issue of the long term unemployed with large families.
You replied "monitoring families through society and social services". What exactly does that mean?
You added that such families have "sufficient money" to cover their needs but not their greed. Are you seriously saying that cutting benefits for, say, 11 children down to 3 children would not have a catastrophic effect on a family's income? People are up in arms about absent's comments but, whilst she acknowledges herself the term "starvation" was perhaps an over-dramatisation, the ultimate result of massively decreasing welfare payments would be severe malnourishment. If, as somebody suggested, the current system was maintained for current recipients but limited to 2/3 children for new claimants, there is no guarantee that this would prevent large families, and children born into such families would suffer.
Nelliemoser explains the barriers to moving from benefit to work these days - particularly with the sort of "zero hours" contracts that are becoming increasingly popular with employers. As Polly Toynbee was quoted in the Sun article, there are 5 people chasing every job and in some depressed areas there are 20 people chasing every job.
The Sun's columnist talks about people "breeding", which I think is a dehumanising and offensive term and one which has sinister historical connotations.
Greatnan cautions against using the American model as a guide for our own social arrangements. I second that. Despite being the richest country in the world, the US has a relatively high rate of infant mortality and significant child poverty. The recent documentary that some gransnetters watched showed the dire poverty in which a a surprisingly large number of American children are living - hardly a recommendation for the US system.
