• The post you are reporting:
   
  "Why blame the conservatives..."
  -I had a dig at the Conservatives simply because this issue was being seen as one of money only and not 'children, as it should be.
  "having children they cannot support without state aid"
  -So, all benefits should be means-tested. This would mean great savings generally and would leave more in the pot to support those in need. I suspect that this is a little too perfect, and would lead to greater distress down the line, but maybe worth thinking about.
  "So lets stop this drivel about creating poverty by instigating a reasonable level of child benefit,we have eliminated poverty on the scale once known in this country and replaced it with unjustified benefit entitlement culture. "
  -Should we go back to the way it once was?
  "The state provides enough finances to everyone in need"
  -This is purely laughable.
  Accidents of birth, hard work and all the hours God sends are unlikely to achieve this. Naturally, this all depends on what is 'need' and who gets to decide on those 'needs'.
  
  Elsewhere we read (#12) that 190 families = £11m cost per annum.
  1/ Is this likely to be arithmetically correct?
  2/ Are the children of large families of no benefit at all?
  
  Who is to know what drives a woman to become addicted to the hormones etc. of pregnancy? What, if any, might be the down-side of limiting a woman's desire to give birth? Can the natural drives that are part and parcel of being a human being be reduced to the penny-pinching level?

Report Post

Your Name

Reason