Mr Prime Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 Make the money that is given in child benefit means tested and take it from those that don't need it. That should save plenty of cash from scroungers that don't need it. We should also stop giving out free education to those family's that can afford to pay. That should save plenty as well. University education should be fully paid for and not subsidised. Again that would save plenty. Those saving could then be invested in the necessary crèches for those children with mothers on benefits to allow them to work for a living. Unless you can of course come up with a better idea? Your ideas sound fine to me though I do think education is a right not a privelige! We would have more money for ambitious people to get educated for free if billions weren't given to the unambitious to watch their peers on Jeremy Kyle all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finoni9 Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 In the light of the Baby P debacle and that woman who hid her child for reward money this is a question I often ask myself and I wonder what others think. A friend of mine who worked amongst the underclass said a few years ago that if it were up to him there would be compulsory sterilisation that could only be reversed on application. I told him he was an extremist and took my usual liberal leftie view but...I saw a Swedish politician recently saying that messed up junkie women are given a pill that makes them infertile for a year and the situation is reviewed annually according to their behaviour. The other issue is the much hated situation where Vicki Pollard types knock out kids by various Waynes and Kevins to live at the taxpayers expense while wailing that they are entitled if anyone dares criticise them. In reality for normal people is it not plain common sense to not have kids if you have no money or security? Why should the taxpayer cover the difference? I agree - there should be something in place - being a foster carer and seeing how kids are treated and they are often 1 of many children, there should be some way of stopping them having more children until they can prove they are able to take care of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Is having children an automatic right? In a word ………….. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 I agree - there should be something in place - being a foster carer and seeing how kids are treated and they are often 1 of many children, there should be some way of stopping them having more children until they can prove they are able to take care of them. The problem with that is...the criteria of proof that you are capable. How can you "prove" you're capable before the fact? Money? Job? House? Car?...None of those 'make' you a good parent...yet all of them can contribute. There are probably as much *****d up kids on the streets from so called wealthy/healthy parents....are they inc in the eugenics programme? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Your ideas sound fine to me though I do think education is a right not a privelige! We would have more money for ambitious people to get educated for free if billions weren't given to the unambitious to watch their peers on Jeremy Kyle all day. No, children are a right and part of the natural process called Evolution. Education is not a natural right and any free education is now a privilege that has been fought for in the past. People that can afford to pay for it should pay so as not to be a burden on the taxpayer. I don't have a TV, is Jeremy Kyle on all day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finoni9 Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 The problem with that is...the criteria of proof that you are capable. How can you "prove" you're capable before the fact? Money? Job? House? Car?...None of those 'make' you a good parent...yet all of them can contribute. There are probably as much *****d up kids on the streets from so called wealthy/healthy parents....are they inc in the eugenics programme? I agree - it's not just money, job, housing - there is a term in social services which is "good enough parenting" - doesn't mean they have to be perfect parents but generally their caring meets a good enough standard. I also agree, working with children in both rich and poorer areas of Sheffield - you get kids that can have emotional difficulties from both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 I think it's pretty obvious that the majority of messed up kids come from messed up families. Of course there will be a minority who are not but that just proves the rule anyway. Endless interviews with prisoners reveals almost all of them felt unloved by their parents. When street gangs are interviewed they say the same thing. As for interviews firstly money is important, we don't live in a socialist society and it's reasonable for taxpayers to not want to pay for non contributors. If some Wayne is sat there with convictions for GBH next to Vicky with convictions for theft and neither have any work history are you going to give them money for kids? That's not eugenics just common sense. No one is suggesting a nose size or being from a poor background should exclude people. A slack attitude and answers of "dunno" to key questions should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 No, children are a right and part of the natural process called Evolution. Education is not a natural right and any free education is now a privilege that has been fought for in the past. People that can afford to pay for it should pay so as not to be a burden on the taxpayer. I don't have a TV, is Jeremy Kyle on all day? Well the old grants system meant the well off paid and the normals did not. Nice and simple, like the NHS used to be but then think tanks and politicians started playing with it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finoni9 Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 I think it's pretty obvious that the majority of messed up kids come from messed up families. Of course there will be a minority who are not but that just proves the rule anyway. Endless interviews with prisoners reveals almost all of them felt unloved by their parents. When street gangs are interviewed they say the same thing. As for interviews firstly money is important, we don't live in a socialist society and it's reasonable for taxpayers to not want to pay for non contributors. If some Wayne is sat there with convictions for GBH next to Vicky with convictions for theft and neither have any work history are you going to give them money for kids? That's not eugenics just common sense. No one is suggesting a nose size or being from a poor background should exclude people. A slack attitude and answers of "dunno" to key questions should. I agree that most messed up kids come from messed up families (and about those in prison/gangs feeling unloved). *If some Wayne is sat there with convictions for GBH next to Vicky with convictions for theft and neither have any work history are you going to give them money for kids?* *A slack attitude and answers of "dunno" to key questions should.* * lol but true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitch_1980 Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 Can we actually afford as a country to keep going the way we are, and allow the present rate at which the country is growing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.