The harsh truth about Tory policies

treliac

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

You make it sound like people on benefits are living in the lap of luxury, which is ridiculous. I couldn't live on the pittance that they get and I can't believe how many people on here believe that people "choose" to live like that. Why would anyone "Choose" to live on benefits? It must be a dreadful life and people who find themselves in that predictament have nothing but my total and utmost sympathy.

Err .... just how did I do that? The conclusions you leap to are the really ridiculous.

And if people wouldn't choose to live on benefits, then why do so many do just that?

Why don't you get out there, mix with a few and find out, rather than making assumptions?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Sounds as if the hardworking will no longer have to break their backs carrying the !!!!less and lazy.

Sounds like a good set of policies to me.

By the !!!!less and the lazy are you talking about the wealthy class? The one's which Cameron and Osbourne come from who wouldn't know a hard days work if it slapped them in the face and neither would their ancestors who no doubt get to be rich in the first place, through taking advantage of poor people, slaves or other poor folk in the British Empire.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

mbga9pgf wrote: »

less well off can just as easily invest. Unfortunately, that means they cant spend on cigarettes, designer chav gear and going out and getting p*ssed, instead having to pick up a book and find out how to invest.

The poor stay poor because thats what they choose. They could lift themselves up. But they make themselved 'victims' instead.

The rich spend a lot more of their days sitting on their backsides doing nothing. The designer gear they buy is more much more expensive than something from Primark. Whatsmore, they have you working from dawn to dusk for you sorry wage and all you can do is attack someone with even less. Open your eyes.

misskool

Heyman wrote: »

Well of course lazy people shouldn't be supported by the state. But what about those on low income jobs?

You can't deny that the gap between rich and poor has grown incredibly over the last few years. And the Tories won't make it any better, believe you me!

I think it was in one of the Michael Moore films where George Bush was talking to a woman who held down 3 jobs to support her family. And everyone clapped! So, let me get this right - it's a good thing that a woman has to work likely 70-80 hours a week just to get by?

Same mentality here. Oh if we all work hard, we'll be ok - what a sham :rolleyes:

No, it's not right for someone to work 70-80 hours a week just to get by.

But you won't get a competitive edge in a country where you tax to oblivion those who do choose to work hard and get well paid for it. People don't work hard because they don't have to, the government will top up your pay and give you benefits. There is no incentive, no desire to be the best and top of your game because anything you do that is more than mediocre will get taxed.

I believe in rewarding those who choose to work and make their money. They worked for their money, let them do what they want with it

*and I'm not even a higher rate tax payer and not likely to be one for a long time!

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So tell me, do they have oxygen on the planet you come from?

Because nobody living on this one could have failed to notice all the Sky dishes on council houses, the single mothers with 5 kids from 5 fathers, breeding for benefits, and living in a 6 bedroom house all paid for from MY hard work, etc, etc, etc.....

Yes, of course there should be a safety net. But benefits for all but the disabled should be time limited. After a year or two, no more benefits for you. We won't let people starve and freeze on the streets, even the lazy and f e c k less ones. But that can be achieved by providing a dormitory and a soup kitchen at far less cost than today.

Benefits SHOULD be miserable, subsistence level, and something to be avoided. Not a reward for playing the system.

What planet are you living on? Look around at all the rich people doing NOTHING! Why do you resent someone living in a coucil house a sat dish when the rich are living of the backs of all of us and you don't seem to mind at all. The rich have you working you !!! off to buy same house your ancestors could have bought for next to nothing! It's a con - we are all nothing but debt slaves.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

What planet are you living on. Look around at all the rich people doing NOTHING! Why do you resent someone living in a coucil house a sat dish when the rich are living of the backs of all of us and you don't seem to mind at all.

What utter b0ll0x...

Rich people make the investments, that provides the funding, that starts the companies, that pay the taxes, that provides you with a job.

Grow up.

The rich have you working you !!! off to buy same house your ancestors could have bought for next to nothing! It's a con - we are all nothing but debt slaves.

Your ancestors could not afford a house. Only 100 years ago, 90% of housing was owned by the top 10% of society. And families lived 6 or 8 people to a room.

Grow up, and stop being so ignorant.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What utter b0ll0x...

Rich people make the investments, that provides the funding, that starts the companies, that pay the taxes, that provides you with a job.

Grow up.

Ohhhhhh pleeeeeease! We should be sooooo grateful to them for chucking us scraps from their table.

LizEstelle

Well, dopesmoking, folding-bike-in-the-boot, Champagne Dave will probably get in next year, thanks to the sterling efforts of the anti-Labour MSE mafiosi...

... and then we'll see whether the man who would not have rescued the economy a la Brown but allowed the great majority of us to cope with 1930s depression-type conditions while he and his fellow Old Etonian grandees lived it up at Claridges will actually be a PM who has the slightest grasp of economics at street level.

Personally, I doubt it.

wageslave

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

I started to read this thread thinking to put my tuppence worth in. I now find there is no need.

Will you marry me?

treliac

LizEstelle wrote: »

Well, dopesmoking, folding-bike-in-the-boot, Champagne Dave will probably get in next year, thanks to the sterling efforts of the anti-Labour MSE mafiosi...

... and then we'll see whether the man who would not have rescued the economy a la Brown but allowed the great majority of us to cope with 1930s depression-type conditions while he and his fellow Old Etonian grandees lived it up at Claridges will actually be a PM who has the slightest grasp of economics at street level.

Personally, I doubt it.

Wow, do you mean that MSE tories will have won the election for them? :shocked:

MSE can change the world!