Suzette, quantining welfare is not that difficult, it's simply paid in to special debit card, and the card will not allow for restricted purchases. So when used to buy restricted goods, the register/operator simp,y says something like "another form of payment required".

The same card system could also be used fir child support payments, another area that suffers badly from miss use of funds.

I thought the stimulus back in the Rudd days could have been issued this way, with a similar card that had restricted uses and a three month use by date, a use it or loose it situation. We have the tech, but fir so e reason refuse to use it.

Every dollar of welfare waste is a dollar that some child does not see.

Hasbeen, I'm with you on adoptions and IVF, but, like many things, I think the solution is too simple.

When a hatchett job is not enough.

This piece might help Mr Johns and his fellow parasi...learned colleagues move a little closer to a decent understanding of the reasons their superficial solutions to deep problems have failed so badly.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/16/12/125008/article

"On 23 October, 2009 a press release appeared, titled: 'The Financial Crisis: How Economists Went Astray. Two Nobel Laureates and over 2000 Signatories Uphold that Economists have mistaken Mathematical Beauty for Economic Truth.' The signatories signed a web petition in support of an article4 by the Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, saying: 'Few economists saw our current crisis coming, but this predictive failure was the least of the fieldʼs problems. More important was the professionʼs blindness to the very possibility of catastrophic failures in a market economy ... the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth ...'"

It goes on to show why the neo-liberal approach can never lead to an optimal equilibrium state and approaches the delicate problem of the coming failure of the so-called economic rationalist model, although it doesn't deal with it directly.

I hope that everyone interested in this topic will read it. It's not hard going and it is a very important addition to our understanding of the way the world IS, rather than the airy-fairy self-interest cloaked in claptrap that passes for that understanding among so many of our decision-makers and their load of parasi...learned colleagues.

o sung wu,

Thanks for explaining about the capitals. That's totally understandable - and something that never occurred to me.

I do think this topic is way more complex than merely decreeing welfare contingent on contraception for women...because it would only be for women - and that would be an interesting piece of legislation to pass (if it needed legislation)..as it targets only one gender.

A happy and healthy 2015 for you too, o sung wu : )

I totally agree with Phanto, so I have nothing else to add, except:

Dear Rehctub and Suse,

Quarantining of income cannot work as it can be so easily by-passed: simply do the grocery shopping for someone else, then receive cash for their goods.

A couple of points:
We already have the BasicsCard rolled out across the NT and in a few other locations across Australia. Put parental payments and child bonuses on those to see the money is not "pissed up against the wall".
Forced adoption? What a social Neanderthal that Hasbeen is! How will that work? Shall we incarcerate all indigent pregnant women in birthing hotels, await the birth and then take the child? It might be worth trying just to see the women streaming into town to take those hotels down.
And I did like Poirot's observation (Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 1 January 2015 8:02:00 AM) that passing legislation for one gender only might be difficult in today's world.