No contraception, no dole

cajonlardo

ColeTrain wrote: »

He is right.

There's too many on welfare having children and making it a lifestyle choice for themselves. Why should the taxpayer support this choice?

off the top of my head I can easily think of several different families where the parents were on welfare and the kids went on to lead very productive lives. In fact I know one who saved a family from a fire as well as being the first lad we ask when we need volunteers in the community.

On the other hand I can just as easily think of the offspring of people in well paid employment all their lives who are just a drain on our community - drug taking drunken, speeding and dangerous driving etc

Flippant remarks and observations are....well, just flippant

VinLieger

sup_dude wrote: »

What an awful lot of people do is try to make out that all or majority of dole receivers are spongers, and that's ignoring reality on a worse scale. I'd love to see those statistics, but they'd also have to define circumstance.

Very true about defining it and I dont believe all of or even the majority are "spongers" but I do believe its also a larger number than some on here would claim

pocketkings

All you people complaining about people living such a cushy life on the dole - why don't you quit your job and sign up then?


No?


Then shut the fcuk up and be grateful for what you have. Moany cuunts.

You lot are one of the worst aspects of Irish society. Not the (vastly overestimated in number) scroungers, its you fcuking whingers that p1ss me off. Get on with your own life and stop complaining that poor people have it better than you do.

wexandproud

Tasden wrote: »

I'm assuming you mean their social welfare should be reduced if maintenance is paid (which currently happens as it stands) and not child benefit? Or do you actually think child benefit, a flat rate universal payment, should be reduced for single parents who receive maintenance?

sorry my error. ment child benefit, but i do think naming fathers so maintenance could be stopped at source should be enforced so both parents accountable

darkpagandeath

VinLieger wrote: »

Very true about defining it and I dont believe all of or even the majority are "spongers" but I do believe its also a larger number than some on here would claim

Onus is on the "They are all Scroungers" to provide the figures or are they pulling them kind of statement's out of their holes ?

I believe the social has been cracking down on all levels within the system got rid of most of the fraudulent claims too. And shock horror the amount of fraudulent claims was tiny, compared to the anecdotal their are people flying in from all over the EU.

wexandproud

pocketkings wrote: »

All you people complaining about people living such a cushy life on the dole - why don't you quit your job and sign up then?


No?


Then shut the fcuk up and be grateful for what you have. Moany cuunts.

You lot are one of the worst aspects of Irish society. Not the (vastly overestimated in number) scroungers, its you fcuking whingers that p1ss me off. Get on with your own life and stop complaining that poor people have it better than you do.

now now , temper temper

SMJSF

I'd be only over the moon if this came in!! (yes I'm female, no kids and not a sleep around) and I'd be picking the best kind - tubes tied.

and BTW, yes I'm on welfare, doing a good course, I don't have a fancy TV or phone - both worth about €50 together at this stage.

DeJa VooDoo

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Onus is on the "They are all Scroungers" to provide the figures or are they pulling them kind of statement's out of their holes ?

I believe the social has been cracking down on all levels within the system got rid of most of the fraudulent claims too. And shock horror the amount of fraudulent claims was tiny, compared to the anecdotal their are people flying in from all over the EU.

Most of the overpayments or 'fraudulent claims' that Burton goes on about every year turn out to be admin errors made by the PS workers in her department.
That's a verifiable fact.

darkpagandeath

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Most of the overpayments or 'fraudulent claims' that Burton goes on about every year turn out to be admin errors made by the PS workers in her department.
That's a verifiable fact.

Or employees in the system ahem.

Ave Sodalis

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Most of the overpayments or 'fraudulent claims' that Burton goes on about every year turn out to be admin errors made by the PS workers in her department.
That's a verifiable fact.

Plus, I don't know how many people realise this but anyone notice how not a single thing was said about any of this until the newspapers started publishing stories about the very very few scrongers that exist and suddenly everyone's experts, and very concerned about how their taxes are spent on something that's existed for a very long time. Most of the scrongers were there before the recession and yet those who have been made go on the dole since then are the ones paying for it with ignorance of the general public and the propaganda from the papers. I had said when the first story was published that people are actually going to believe this crap, and hey presto, here we are today with threads like these popping up on a weekly basis...

DeJa VooDoo

sup_dude wrote: »

Plus, I don't know how many people realise this but anyone notice how not a single thing was said about any of this until the newspapers started publishing stories about the very very few scrongers that exist and suddenly everyone's experts, and very concerned about how their taxes are spent on something that's existed for a very long time. Most of the scrongers were there before the recession and yet those who have been made go on the dole since then are the ones paying for it with ignorance of the general public and the propaganda from the papers. I had said when the first story was published that people are actually going to believe this crap, and hey presto, here we are today with threads like these popping up on a weekly basis...

As I've said, I remember the recession in the 1980's and the papers were full of the 'unmarried mothers' bullsh1te then too.
A percentage of people take the p1ss, the majority don't.

davidfitz22

pocketkings wrote: »

All you people complaining about people living such a cushy life on the dole - why don't you quit your job and sign up then?


No?


Then shut the fcuk up and be grateful for what you have. Moany cuunts.

You lot are one of the worst aspects of Irish society. Not the (vastly overestimated in number) scroungers, its you fcuking whingers that p1ss me off. Get on with your own life and stop complaining that poor people have it better than you do.

P*ss off, they have a right to be annoyed when they have to pay for benefits available to others that they cannot get like medical cards. People milking the system leads to increased taxes to fund this lifestyle which leads to even less money available to joe soap who works 40 hours a week with no aid.

FullblownRose

Dean0088 wrote: »

Well, abortion isn't something I'd see as a solution. But it's not like the UK is some far away land. A few hundred quid if booked at last minute prices tbh. Might be a stretch if you're on the dole but then:

a) don't get pregnant in the first place. Use one or more of the myriad of 99% options out there

b) Order online from that womans network site thing

c) Borrow €200 and fly to London/Manchester, there and back on the same day.

Someone else has replied to correct you on the england option.
I will just add that you need a passport to travel to the U.K..I think it's definitely needed for Ryanair and you *could* be asked for it with other airlines. If someone's short of cash they probably don't have a passport.

As for ordering abortion pills online, they aren't free, they can't be posted to the republic do a post restante address in N.I is necessary along with the travel costs from wherever you live in the republic, and accomodation if you can't get there and back due to train or bus timetables, and there's still the chance that you could get caught.

darkpagandeath

davidfitz22 wrote: »

P*ss off, they have a right to be annoyed when they have to pay for benefits available to others that they cannot get like medical cards. People milking the system leads to increased taxes to fund this lifestyle which leads to even less money available to joe soap who works 40 hours a week with no aid.

Figures to backup this ?

was.deevey

I agree somewhat with this "Lunatic" to some extent.

My view is simply, if you are on the Social Welfare system, you should not be having babies - you get yourself out of the hole and THEN start a family.

The Contraceptive Implant is 99.9% reversible and currently available under the medical card - thats alot of social welfare pregnancies that could be prevented and has few side effects (outside persons with pre-existing medical conditions).

I would put it something like this....

You have kids and you lose your job:
- You will be allowed to claim Dole and CA. However you will not be allowed additional state benefit if you decide to go ahead and have another baby.

You have no kids and on the Dole:
You get the implant, if the contraception fails you will be given benefit.

You refuse the implant, You are on the Dole and decide to have a kid anyhow.
You will not get any state benefit.

You have the implant and the impant fails
You will recieve state benefit as normal.

People on the dole on the existing system
You will not be allowed to claim for any additional children you choose to have.

The aim is not to stop people having babies, its to prevent people who are reliant on the state for financial support from draining an already heaving system from breeding more until such time as they can afford it on their own.

If there was a way of the guy to get an implant as well, I would have suggested that as an alternative.

darkpagandeath

was.deevey wrote: »

I agree somewhat with this "Lunatic" to some extent.

My view is simply, if you are on the Social Welfare system, you should not be having babies - you get yourself out of the hole and THEN start a family.

The Contraceptive Implant is 99.9% reversible and currently available under the medical card - thats alot of social welfare pregnancies that could be prevented and has few side effects (outside persons with pre-existing medical conditions).

I would put it something like this for couples.

You have kids and you lose your job:
- You will be allowed to claim Dole and CA. However you will not be allowed additional state benefit if you decide to go ahead and have another baby.

You have no kids and on the Dole:
You get the implant, if the contraception fails you will be given benefit.

You refuse the implant, You are on the Dole and decide to have a kid anyhow.
You will not get any state benefit.

You have the implant and the impant fails
You will recieve state benefit as normal.

People on the dole on the existing system
You will not be allowed to claim for any additional children they choose to have.

The aim is not to stop people having babies, its to prevent people who are reliant on the state for financial support from draining an already heaving system.

If there was a way of the guy to get an implant as well, I would have suggested that as an alternative.

I'm sure you would be happy for your sister/wife/girlfriend to go this route ?

Ave Sodalis

was.deevey wrote: »

The Contraceptive Implant is 99.9% reversible and currently available under the medical card - thats alot of social welfare pregnancies that could be prevented and has few side effects (outside persons with pre-existing medical conditions).

Why the implant? Many doctors refuse to put it in, my own included as the side effects occur so often that they haven't had one that they haven't take out within a month or two. What if a woman has a bad reaction? What if you use the injection and she has a bad reaction? If you're going to go down this route, at least think of the consequences...

rob316

I would imagine its against your human rights to be forced to take contraception in any circumstance.

was.deevey

sup_dude wrote: »

Why the implant? Many doctors refuse to put it in, my own included as the side effects occur so often that they haven't had one that they haven't take out within a month or two. What if a woman has a bad reaction? What if you use the injection and she has a bad reaction? If you're going to go down this route, at least think of the consequences...

Mainly as its a failsafe solution that is not easily tampered with and lasts for a long duration - of course any failsafe system could be used. I just used the implant as an example.

was.deevey

I would imagine its against your human rights to be forced to take contraception in any circumstance.

Most probably.

It should probably be against human rights to willingly have children without any means of non-state support also though.

darkpagandeath

was.deevey wrote: »

Mainly as its a failsafe solution that is not easily tampered with and lasts for a long duration - of course any failsafe system could be used. I just used the implant as an example.

Could always move to China They have stuff like this, Am sure people would agree with being told how many kids you can and can't have.

was.deevey wrote: »

Most probably.

It should probably be against human rights to willingly have children without any means of non-state support also though.

With an already ageing population if you restrict peoples ability to have children who is going to be your doctor nurse care worker when you are old prey tell ?

VinLieger

was.deevey wrote: »

Most probably.

It should probably be against human rights to willingly have children without any means of non-state support also though.

Exactly bringing a child into the world when you have no viable way of supporting them yourself is disgraceful

VinLieger

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Could always move to China They have stuff like this, Am sure people would agree with being told how many kids you can and can't have.

You can have as many kids as you want just make sure you are able to support them with your own income and are not relying on the state to do it for you.

darkpagandeath

VinLieger wrote: »

You can have as many kids as you want just make sure you are able to support them with your own income and are not relying on the state to do it for you.

Who will look after you in your old age when you restrict peoples ability to have children. We already have an ageing population and a care crisis on the horizon.

yipeeeee

Benefits and entitlement.

Why are these words associated with having kids, or been on social welfare?

Im entitled to this and that.

No-one I'm life is entitled to anything unless you earn it.

Gatling

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Most of the overpayments or 'fraudulent claims' that Burton goes on about every year turn out to be admin errors made by the PS workers in her department.
That's a verifiable fact.

Varifiy away then

darkpagandeath

yipeeeee wrote: »

Benefits and entitlement.

Why are these words associated with having kids, or been on social welfare?

Im entitled to this and that.

No-one I'm life is entitled to anything unless you earn it.

Government came up with them, Same way now you are a customer when on SW or going to the hospital.

CarpeDiem85

Haven't we all benefited from the state through the Children's Allowance though!? I know I certainly did. I'm 29 now, my father worked hard to bring up his family but I know for a fact that if my parents hadn't got the Children's Allowance, then some weeks we would have gone hungry.

was.deevey

Who will look after you in your old age when you restrict peoples ability to have children. We already have an ageing population and a care crisis on the horizon.

If there was less drain on the SW system as a whole, tax breaks would be offered to people with jobs who "could potentially" afford kids, but currently not quite afford them along with a high education and living standard.

Tax incentives would be for the likes of child minding services / clothing / schooling which these folks in many cases "just" fall outside the threshold for gaining any benefits whatsoever and as a result focus solely on their careers forgoing having many, if any, children.

Theres far too many generations that have been born into the system, that live in the system, that have their own kids in the system.

Who will look after you in your old age when you restrict peoples ability to have children. We already have an ageing population and a care crisis on the horizon.

What we need to do is make having kids a financially viable option for young professionals.

Haven't we all benefited from the state through the Children's Allowance though!? I know I certainly did. I'm 29 now, my father worked hard to bring up his family but I know for a fact that if my parents hadn't got the Children's Allowance, then some weeks we would have gone hungry.

My mom worked her ass off too and I too remember that trip to the post office, however at what point did he know that having kids was unsustainable without state support, before or after.

Calina

was.deevey wrote: »

Mainly as its a failsafe solution that is not easily tampered with and lasts for a long duration - of course any failsafe system could be used. I just used the implant as an example.

In general, state sanctioning or people to take a pharmaceutical product as part of an economic policy is a fascist approach and in this case, a gender discriminatory policy given it only impacts women.

There are health risks associated with forced medication and there are health risks associated with any hormonal treatment. I find it fascinating sometimes that it's usually men go on about all women being able to take the pill. It is contraindicated in some cases. So a blanket regulation of this nature would be an extremely stupid path to follow.

In any case, I doubt very much whether the vast majority of welfare recipients are really milking the system to any massive extent. Given the difference in unemployment now compared to 10 years ago, it is clear the desire is to work rather than layabout. Again, punishing the many for the sins of view is...rather dictatorial in my view.

Contraception, for the most part, is a prescription medication. This means you get it in consultation with a medical professional only. For those of you who are yammering on about what a great idea this is, it would be interesting to know how many of you are actually experts in medicine. My suspicion is not many. I'm not myself, but then, I'm not arguing in favour of a very stupid idea either.

CarpeDiem85

^My point was that no one in this state was brought up 100% solely on their parents earnings, they received contributions from the State. I don't know any parents that don't accept Child Benefit and are thankful to get it. I still regard it as a State Payment.

was.deevey

Calina wrote: »

In general, state sanctioning or people to take a pharmaceutical product as part of an economic policy is a fascist approach and in this case, a gender discriminatory policy given it only impacts women.

There are health risks associated with forced medication and there are health risks associated with any hormonal treatment. I find it fascinating sometimes that it's usually men go on about all women being able to take the pill. It is contraindicated in some cases. So a blanket regulation of this nature would be an extremely stupid path to follow.

In any case, I doubt very much whether the vast majority of welfare recipients are really milking the system to any massive extent. Given the difference in unemployment now compared to 10 years ago, it is clear the desire is to work rather than layabout. Again, punishing the many for the sins of view is...rather dictatorial in my view.

Contraception, for the most part, is a prescription medication. This means you get it in consultation with a medical professional only. For those of you who are yammering on about what a great idea this is, it would be interesting to know how many of you are actually experts in medicine. My suspicion is not many. I'm not myself, but then, I'm not arguing in favour of a very stupid idea either.

In that case just let the couple decide on their choice of contraception they wish to use (if any).

The parents of any children conceived whilst on the Dole will not be entitled to additional social welfare payments based on their choice to have a baby.

If they can prove that substantial methods were taken to avoid that pregnancy e.g. failed state issued Implant / IUD etc ...claims could then be contested.

Would that be better ?

darkpagandeath

was.deevey wrote: »

In that case just let the couple decide on their choice of contraception they wish to use (if any).

The parents of any children conceived whilst on the Dole will not be entitled to additional social welfare payments based on their choice to have a baby.

If they can prove that substantial methods were taken to avoid that pregnancy e.g. failed state issued Implant / IUD etc ...claims could then be contested.

Would that be better ?

You do know the amount you get for a child is a pittance right ? you don't get 188 per child. Would you take the Child benefit off everyone to make it even ? A lot of the allowances people in work can also claim.

was.deevey

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

^My point was that no one in this state was brought up 100% solely on their parents earnings, they received contributions from the State. I don't know any parents that don't accept Child Benefit and are thankful to get it. I still regard it as a State Payment.

And I would not take that away from the current taxpayers, just make it a N/A to those who choose to have kids while receiving the dole as their income source.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You do know the amount you get for a child is a pittance right ? you don't get 188 per child. Would you take the Child benefit off everyone to make it even ? A lot of the allowances people in work can also claim.

They are already paying taxes.

darkpagandeath

was.deevey wrote: »

And I would not take that away from the current taxpayers, just make it a N/A to those who choose to have kids while receiving the dole as their income source.



They are already paying taxes.

And what happens when these people turn to crime to support their lifestyle ?

Don't people on the dole pay vat and all that ? or are they exempt ?

was.deevey

And what happens when these people turn to crime to support their lifestyle ?

Do people not on social welfare turn to a life of crime when there is an unexpected baby on the way ? Not generally, they accept it and try to make ends meet somehow.

Don't people on the dole pay vat and all that ? or are they exempt ?

Not PRSI as far as I know (maybe wrong)? In light of that, certain changes would need to be made.

However, you do realize the likes of VAT goes to many other things other than social welfare like - roads, education, healthcare etc.. as well right ? And if there was less of a strain on the system those would also improve.

Solutions are only born out of a multitude of ideas from all sides of the table - whats yours ?

CarpeDiem85

^As I already stated on this thread a few times, please please look up the cuts that have been made to the OPFA in Budget '14. There have been huge cuts bringing the allowance for one child down from age 18 to age 7. There have already been huge changes. Having a child isn't a lifestyle choice now as by law parents are responsible for their children until they are adults. How you could bring up a child on so little isn't something I'd do by choice and will deter this.

Calina

was.deevey wrote: »

In that case just let the couple decide on their choice of contraception they wish to use (if any).

The parents of any children conceived whilst on the Dole will not be entitled to additional social welfare payments based on their choice to have a baby.

If they can prove that substantial methods were taken to avoid that pregnancy e.g. failed state issued Implant / IUD etc ...claims could then be contested.

Would that be better ?

No.

a) administering a system of measuring what contraception everyone concerned is using would probably cost more than support benefit does. I'd also like to know whether your suggstion

b) your suggestion involves punishing children for their parents' failings.

c) as I understood it, the issue wasn't "couples" but "women claiming single parent benefit".

The best methods - and already proven in this country and a bunch of others - of reducing the number of early pregnancies include education and education support.

No one has provided statistics proving that feckless procreation of this nature takes a monumental amount of the social welfare budget. This is because it doesn't. We also have proof from the way figures have gone over the past 10 years or so that people tend to prefer to work. SO a lot of of the welfare recipients in this country actually used to pay into the system. The majority have not been coining it on welfare all their adult life.

A programme of forced medication like this is not the behaviour of a mature state.

Gatling

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You do know the amount you get for a child is a pittance right ? you don't get 188 per child. Would you take the Child benefit off everyone to make it even ? A lot of the allowances people in work can also claim.

No but when you combine 188 x2 in a lot of cases
Qualified children payment
Rent supplement
Medical card

Some are literally earning 30+k pa
Not bad for doing absolutely nothing

A welfare supported family of 2 adults and 2 kids receive €32,000 per annum included rent supplement that doesn't include child benefit and Medical card

DeJa VooDoo

VinLieger wrote: »

You can have as many kids as you want just make sure you are able to support them with your own income and are not relying on the state to do it for you.

If that's what you really want then will you hand back your children's allowance and start paying for their schooling etc etc etc....?
Should your parents pay back all the money the state gave them while they were bringing you up?

I mean, where does this line of thinking begin and end?

Should people in rented council houses be made pay the market rent for the house we provide them with or must the taxpayer continue subsidising them?
Should they pay the LPT?

Should our glorious public sector workers have their wages 'benchmarked' to the new reality of Ireland in 2015 or must we in the private sector continue to pay for them to be paid over the odds?

It's a bit off topic I know, but the money all comes from the one pot at the end of the day.

darkpagandeath

Gatling wrote: »

No but when you combine 188 x2 in a lot of cases
Qualified children payment
Rent supplement
Medical card

Some are literally earning 30+k pa
Not bad for doing absolutely nothing

I'm sure you have a breakdown over the money paid to people who are getting 30k pa on the dole. Medical card is always a red herring, it does not cost money when not used. And rent supplement is hard to get and even harder to get a place that will have rent that low.

Gatling

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm sure you have a breakdown over the money paid to people who are getting 30k pa on the dole. Medical card is always a red herring, it does not cost money when not used. And rent supplement is hard to get and even harder to get a place that will have rent that low.

This is just for a family of 2 adults and 2 kids

€32,000 per year not including child benefit and Medical cards .
The medical card in your mind doesn't cost anything but the services used do this includes gp and hospital visits

darkpagandeath

Gatling wrote: »

This is just for a family of 2 adults and 2 kids

€32,000 per year not including child benefit and Medical cards .
The medical card in your mind doesn't cost anything but the services used do this includes gp and hospital visits

Do you go the Gp or hospital when not sick ?

wexandproud

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

^My point was that no one in this state was brought up 100% solely on their parents earnings, they received contributions from the State. I don't know any parents that don't accept Child Benefit and are thankful to get it. I still regard it as a State Payment.

on one point you are correct , nobody has brought up kids 100% on their own earnings. That is everybody family gets childrens allowance.

on you second point I know lots of people who were never even offered extra benefit when more kids appeared on scene ie those working

Gatling

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Do you go the Gp or hospital when not sick ?

A bit of a roundabout

Ask a question

Get an answer

Let's go around again with an excuse

was.deevey

Calina wrote: »

a) administering a system of measuring what contraception everyone concerned is using would probably cost more than support benefit does.

Theres no measuring, you have a baby or you don't. The only issue that would arise is if there was a dispute over a failing implant or device and they would be covered under the existing medical card.

Calina wrote: »

b) your suggestion involves punishing children for their parents' failings.

We are all punished for our parents financial failings, however if there is a capacity to "fail more" it becomes far less attractive to arrive at that situation in the first place and therefore you get careful or screwed (twice).

Calina wrote: »

c) as I understood it, the issue wasn't "couples" but "women claiming single parent benefit".

When I last checked it takes 2 people to make a baby, even if it just takes one night and they are both technically single at the time.
[/quote]

Gerry T

If your on the dole, and chose to have a baby why should the state give you any more money ? surely having a child is a big decision and being able to buy the kid food, clothes, school books etc is your responsibility, no one else should have to fit that bill.
Would it not be better to say if your unlucky to find yourself unemployed that at that point if you have 3 kids or 1 kid and 1 on the way then your dole is based on that, but if you have more while still on the dole there really is no reason why the state should pay any extra.

Calina

was.deevey wrote: »

Theres no measuring, you have a baby or you don't. The only issue that would arise is if there was a dispute over a failing implant or device and they would be covered under the existing medical card.

Forgive me, I assumed that when you suggested a couple could choose whatever contraception they liked, you meant they could choose whatever method of contraception they liked, and not only from the subset of chemical contraception, responsibility for which falls on women.

Obviously I was wrong because you didn't include condoms or the rhythm method in the list of approved methods of contraception.

You have not addressed the inherent gender injustice of forcing women to take medicine when men are not forced to take medicine when they are on the dole. Nor have you addressed the idea that in fact, state sanctioned forced medication is not the hallmark of a mature society.

Secondly, none of the hormonal, chemical forms of contraception are infallible.

There are all sorts of ethical and practical problems with this idea, not to mention the medical issues which I have already highlighted with hormonal based contraceptions.

Seriously, this is a beyond stupid idea.

Calina

Gerry T wrote: »

If your on the dole, and chose to have a baby why should the state give you any more money ? surely having a child is a big decision and being able to buy the kid food, clothes, school books etc is your responsibility, no one else should have to fit that bill.
Would it not be better to say if your unlucky to find yourself unemployed that at that point if you have 3 kids or 1 kid and 1 on the way then your dole is based on that, but if you have more while still on the dole there really is no reason why the state should pay any extra.

Pregnancy is not always a choice and in this country, getting out of being pregnant is very hard.

Gerry T

Calina wrote: »

Pregnancy is not always a choice and in this country, getting out of being pregnant is very hard.

I know and mistakes do happen. But the system is being abused. So if your single and that happens then you should be looking to family / friends for help, not the state. If all you got on the dole was enough to support one person then people would be far more careful, less mistakes.

It sounds harsh I know, but forced contraception is never going to happen and those that make a life style choice to live off the dole need to be discouraged. Then there could be more given to those that are really dependent on the dole.