In order to pay all my bills etc I need an extra £30 a month...

Deepmistrust

janninew wrote: »

Your quite a rude person, I'm entitled to my opinion the same as you.

When me and my husband decided to have children we both had good jobs, a home and savings in the bank, we planned our future. We both made the child we have and I don't consider what he does as subsidising me, when the children go to school, I will go back to my career. Is it really so wrong for a husband to support his wife and children? Why is it more acceptable to expect the state to support people who have children?

I'm rude?

Oh hang on, it's you that launched into an attack about benefits receipients being subsidised by tax payers, finally admitting you aren't even a tax payer yourself, who is happy to take another type of subsidy, but rude enough to suggest that those not as lucky as you (to have someone willing and able to support their stay at home lifestyle) are somehow scrounging.

I guess truth hurts. I doubt you've even ever considered it that way before.

It's your partners choice to support YOU, (supporting his children is not such a choice), but he does CHOOSE to support you so that you can bring up your children at home.

At no point have I suggest he is "wrong" for this choice (as you suggest I said), which makes your other statement "Why is it more acceptable to expect the state to support people who have children?" a fallacy (as I never implied the former, I cannot defend the latter, in simple terms).

I don't see the relevance that you "had a good job". Would you like a medal? You don't have a job at all now. And it's now we are talking about. Or are you suggesting that anyone with children in receipt of state benefits hasn't had a job before?

Deepmistrust

And in addition, when a culture of vicious lies and hatred towards benefits receipients is spread in this way by anyone, (much less from hypocritical wives of wealthy men who subsidise them), on the internet, the media or elsewhere, it manifests in many forms, often it results in discrimination or stereotyping of people who are on low incomes.

So if you think I'm rude, I don't really give a hoot, rather be blunt ("rude") that a vicious little hypocrite. Gone are the days I'm polite to people like yourself, who ironically think themselves more worthy than others not as fortunate.

Jowo_2

You two are going way off thread . In summary, the original OP struggled to accept that her household did not qualify for any benefits and was entirely resistant to being directed to cut expenses. You are straying into policy (and unrelated insults) now.

Deepmistrust

Jowo wrote: »

You two are going way off thread . In summary, the original OP struggled to accept that her household did not qualify for any benefits and was entirely resistant to being directed to cut expenses. You are straying into policy (and unrelated insults) now.

True, but most threads transgress at some point. And if people choose to use the thread to attack (in the case of Janninew) policy and in particular - in her case - the recipients of benefits policy, then it's only fair that her point is opposed.

Jowo_2

How about untransgressing it by proposing solutions to the OP who clung hopelessly to the notion that only the receipt of benefits could alleviate their household financial problems, who sleepwalked into unaffordable loans and non payment of utility bills, who couldn't even construct a basic accurate household budget (missing things like food, water bill, gas bill and other expenses), who blanked and rejected most solutions?

Deepmistrust

Jowo wrote: »

How about untransgressing it by proposing solutions to the OP who clung hopelessly to the notion that only the receipt of benefits could alleviate their household financial problems, who sleepwalked into unaffordable loans and non payment of utility bills, who couldn't even construct a basic accurate household budget (missing things like food, water bill, gas bill and other expenses), who blanked and rejected most solutions?

Which of course you appear to be doing in your last couple of posts ?!?

The fact being, that all those things you mention, have already been addressed on here by numerous posters.

That threads trangress, is the nature of these kind of threads. You don't have to like it, but you do have to lump it.

viktory

Time to start reporting Deepmistrust's more unpleasant [pst - eventually he will be PPR'd as he is incapable of saying anything pleasant or constructive.

divastrop

viktory wrote: »

Time to start reporting Deepmistrust's more unpleasant [pst - eventually he will be PPR'd as he is incapable of saying anything pleasant or constructive.

You mean he makes valid and constructive points which you don't agree with and that makes you uncomfortable? I have never seen any posts by DMT which personally attack another poster, so what is there to report?