Nope, no hard evidence at all.
But you know it to be true
A priceless defence. You should be a lawyer. 
Believe me my friend, if I was young again I’d go to law school, become a lawyer and prosecute any and all that abused the system.
Bring back the stocks and pillories I say
This sounds very similar to the “welfare queen” hysteria the US had a decade or two ago. But when you looked at the statistics, most people on welfare were either truly disabled, or only on for a short time. The media sensationalized a few cases and everyone seemed to think the professional, second or third generation, welfare recipient was the norm.
The other problem here is you will end up punishing children for the sins or their parents. It is great to talk about shifting priorities to child care and job training. I am in favor in principle. The problem is the such programs would need a large initial outlay to set up. They could very well pay for them selves by reducing the amount of overall assistance needed, but we need to pay more for few years to get them started. Where is that money going to come from? Do you cut current recipients off, putting people on the street?
Also, eugenics is a dangerous path to take. Before you advocate putting the government in charge of who can have kids, think about what the Bush administration tried to pull in the Justice department. What better way to have a permanent majority than to only allow your supporters to reproduce?
Jonathan
It’s exactly the same story, whipped up by a tabloid press who know just how to exploit various class-laden prejudices found in many Brits.
Plus, in the case of Incapacity Benefit, you risk doing harm to those genuinely unable to work. (I’ve been in exactly such a position myself, where I had recovered from serious problems to the point I could basically function normally, but wouldn’t at that stage have coped with work, and the stress of the kinds of ‘back-to-work assessments’ being discussed would have been very counterproductive.)
I think we can all agree that any money spent on social welfare should be spent in the best possible way, so it could always be productive to discuss the pros and cons of different programs. But before we talk about changing entire programs because of cheaters, you need to ask yourself how many cheaters there really are and how many non-cheaters your are willing to hurt to punish them.
Jonathan
Except we didn’t have to pay for it…
Decades later, this is the norm, at least in Southern California. Every person I know who is getting any sort of government dole could work if they wanted to. Part of the problem is the government’s definition of “disabled” - I’ve qualified for that for over 15 years, but it’s only been the last year that I finally had to give up working. However, because I have no children I am only eligible for SSi, which I have to fight for and haven’t yet received.
It’s better to just let them live in squalor, frequently with adults that couldn’t care less about them?
Yup. As soon as you do, the thousands we have who could work and just choose not to will get a job. (Well, not right now, bad time to try that). If they are actually honest to god homeless, they can live at LTA or El Toro. They abuse those facilities, they are back on the street. They just need to learn that they are responsible for themselves, not the government, not the taxpayer. THEN welfare might actually go to those who really cannot work at all and have no other way to get an income, but only for them not for any children they might pump out.
We did, just in different ways. Unless (as you posit below) the cheats are the biggest percentage of users, you have people with no way of earning a living, with kids and no income. What do you think will happen to those kids? What do you think that will do to crime rates?
That may be what you see, but it doesn’t match up to the overall picture. Here is one site that backs up what I remember. Using data from 1994 they show that 50% of recipients use welfare for less than 2 years, and less than 20% for more than 5.
You also need to separate programs as SSI is a disability program, which is not quite the same thing as an income support program.
What alternative are you proposing? Take the kids to foster care? Who pays for that? There is already a shortage of available homes. You basically have to pay someone to take care of the kids in addition to pay for their material upkeep.
Welfare should have two purposes, those who cannot work at all, and those who are in transition. I fully endorse adding non-payment services such as childcare and job training so that long term usage will decrease. But that costs up front money that most welfare reformers are not willing to spend.
Jonathan
That is a big “unless” you have in there, and I did address it in my post. Those who are honestly unable to work should get benefits, but they shouldn’t get anything more if they have a baby/ies while on the dole.
Uh, well, that means less than nothing to me. Welfare is a state run program here, so overall US stats, from 14 years ago, are pretty immaterial.
SSI is an income support program for those folks that are too disabled to work. Other than state disability, which has run out, I have zero other programs available to me because I don’t have children. I’m not even eligible for unemployment because the window of opportunity closed while I was getting state disability. On the other hand, we have aid to dependent families, food stamps, MediCal and probably other programs that I cannot get because I had the gall to work for the past 30+ years, live within my means and plan for the future. However, if the government keeps taxing me to support people who cannot be bothered to do any of that, I may not have a decent life in old age.
My thought is that if the mothers don’t get to keep the baby and don’t get any money for having it, they will quit having so many that we have to support. Cut off all tax money going to mothers who have babies while on the dole and use it to create orphanages (which would have to be renamed since they aren’t actually orphans).
Welfare should be transition only. For those who cannot work at all they can get disability. But no payments for creating more people to support while on the dole!
California already has these. Doesn’t appear to be working in any way since there is no requirement for welfare takers to use them.
That sounds like Ceausescu’s Romania. Seriously.
What did Ceausescu do i Romania, when and what happened?
Well, pretty much everyone in the world agreed it was a crappy place to live.
There are countless countries with no social welfare system. There are a few countries where human reproduction is tightly controlled. Go check it out and tell me if those are countries you want to be more like. I, for one, am glad I don’t have to trip over poor families sleeping in the gutters every time I go to 7-11.
One link of many: BBC NEWS | Europe | Life in Ceausescu's institutions
So, Romania is/was a crappy place to live. That tells me a lot.
You think something like that is even possible in the US today?
This doesn’t tell me anything that might have a bearing on the subject. How are/were women viewed there? Was/is there easy access to birth control? Can/did women work? Was/is there a welfare system?
You know, something that might show whether this was just a crazy person imprisoning children or whether this happened in the same sort of situation we now have in the US.
There is two very separate issues here, to make this issue somehow to do with welfare, seems a very crass non-sigure (spelling ?). The issue of welfare reform is an important, and difficult, one, but I’ve not seen the slightest shred of evidence that either of these cases would be the slightest bit different if the families HADN’T been on welfare.
The issue of taking children into care is, obviously more relevant to this case. The policy taking children into care as a “last resort” is still in place, AFAIK. And its a very sensible one. Social care almost ALWAYS fails as a means to raise children, in all but the worst cases it IS better for children to be raised by their parents.
Your suggestion to force women into destitution, and then condemn their children to a life in ‘orphanages’ (your quotes), I find that in itself rather scary. That you don’t even know about Romania’s history is also scary, but was something of an aside anyway.
The term you are looking for is non sequitor
Two major problems I see here: How to define ‘people like this’? And how to find these ‘responsible people’ to foster the children? (It’s not just that there aren’t enough foster parents– there are plenty of gruesome, sensational stories about unfit adoptive homes).
As for adding something to the water– I assume most people suggest this are just in fantasy land. I can’t imagine anything that could be added that wouldn’t result in typical negative BC symptoms (depression, mood swings, etc.) for all, not to mention – Do children really need to be exposed to more chemicals that can screw up their systems?