'Baby Machine' Who Lives Off Benefits Dumped By Cheating Husband While Expecting 12th Child

[LostInAK 43]

12 kids and living off welfare, some people just really know how to live it up on the government's dime.

When it comes to "living it up" I suppose it's all relative. If you born and raised by slacker parents that did as little as possible and sponged of govt. handouts, that lifestyle probably seems pretty normal to you. Why not continue on the family tradtition?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think it proves to some extent that the number of people severely abusing the welfare system is extremely limited (certainly not what the tabloid media depicts it as) and that fixating on extreme families isn't proof of anything at all.

Only 6 families drawing in excess of 100,000 pounds does not mean the system is not being abused. First you claim the extreme is too few, and then use that to dismiss all the rest of those drawing less than 100,000 pounds. How many are drawing more than 90,000 pounds? 80,000 pounds? Beyond what number would you consider excessive in a country where the median income is 26,000 pounds per annum? Really.

[Boiler 46,272]

Abuse is the wrong term, how it was designed.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

When it comes to "living it up" I suppose it's all relative. If you born and raised by slacker parents that did as little as possible and sponged of govt. handouts, that lifestyle probably seems pretty normal to you. Why not continue on the family tradtition?

Back in my lean days, we had a saying, "Three dollars is a lot of money to someone that has none."

Perhaps that needs to be adjusted for inflation. At the time, three dollars could get you a loaf of bread, a package of hot dogs, and a jar of mustard, with some change left over.

[decocker 7,198]

When it comes to "living it up" I suppose it's all relative. If you born and raised by slacker parents that did as little as possible and sponged of govt. handouts, that lifestyle probably seems pretty normal to you. Why not continue on the family tradtition?

i don't know anything about slacker parents or sponging off gov't handouts. if you're born into poverty, you'll likely stay there and it has nothing to do with family tradition.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

if you're born into poverty, you'll likely stay there...

Margaret Sanger made exactly that same argument.

[Umka36 781]

the queen.

She is on the dole as well.

http://www.taxpayertreasurehunt.com/index.php/The_Cost_of_the_British_Monarchy

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Only 6 families drawing in excess of 100,000 pounds does not mean the system is not being abused. First you claim the extreme is too few, and then use that to dismiss all the rest of those drawing less than 100,000 pounds. How many are drawing more than 90,000 pounds? 80,000 pounds? Beyond what number would you consider excessive in a country where the median income is 26,000 pounds per annum? Really.

It was a claim made by the chancellor - why would he make a specific claim about something statistically insignificant if there were thousands upon thousands of people out there making marginally less?

I have no idea what is 'excessive'. If a person has 12 kids - there is a cost associated with that. If the parents can't afford it either the kids are brought up with the rest of the family which is subsidised by benefits or they are put into care. Either way the system has to cater for those kids. As it stands, we aren't in the business of euthanasing or sterilising people. So what would be your solution to this?

Abuse is the wrong term, how it was designed.

No system can cater for every situation, certainly not extreme ones that involve a half dozen people.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I have no idea what is 'excessive'. If a person has 12 kids - there is a cost associated with that. If the parents can't afford it either the kids are brought up with the rest of the family which is subsidised by benefits or they are put into care. Either way the system has to cater for those kids. As it stands, we aren't in the business of euthanasing or sterilising people. So what would be your solution to this?

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Oh, this queen.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

Jonathan Swift comes to mind.

Edited January 26, 2015 by I AM NOT THAT GUY

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Jonathan Swift comes to mind.

Yeah, but one can only profit once from devouring the poor. If we reintroduce the workhouse, we can have them productive (well, as productive as layabouts could ever be) and making cheap stuff for consumption by the middling classes. Without having to pay actual wages -- merely paying for their upkeep -- using the poor as a workforce would make us less reliant on cheap imports. And prisons are always a lucrative proposition.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Jonathan Swift comes to mind.

Well that was satire. And oddly enough it was written as a reaction to the idea that people are disposable, something that frequently comes up in right wing discussions about 'welfare cheats'.

[LostInAK 43]

Back in my lean days, we had a saying, "Three dollars is a lot of money to someone that has none."

Perhaps that needs to be adjusted for inflation. At the time, three dollars could get you a loaf of bread, a package of hot dogs, and a jar of mustard, with some change left over.

I'm sure there were many things different in the 1930s.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'm sure there were many things different in the 1930s.

Something wrong with your 8 key. That looks like a 3.