List The Benefits You Receive. Can the state afford them?

ruggedtoast

This kind of reductionist neo-liberal "commonsense" is contrived to strike a vein with most people.

Creating an ephemeral outgroup of shirkers to feel angry about has long been a tool of those wanting to create a socially divided, non-pluralistic society, for the gain of their own subgroup.

Who constitutes able to work but not willing to; people with arms and legs; children; a woman who quit work because her boss kept touching her or a man on a construction site whos boss refused to provide minimum safety equipment?

Forcing people back into work houses where McTavish would have them, too frightened to challenge poor employment conditions or turn down exploitative employment offers, would just lead us back to Dickensian times.

There is a problem with a benefits culture in this country, but it is a problem driven by a paucity of ambition, poor education, and a genuine lack of opportunities in sub stratas of our society.

We fail children, constantly, every day, kids turn up to badly resourced poorly constructed schools to be taught by teachers who have already written themselves off, let alone their progeny. We then send them back to chaotic, dismal homes where they are poorly fed, neglected, shouted at, and told that they will amount to nothing more than the things around them.

And we say and do nothing to improve their lots, paying billions to support financial services and foreign wars and strangling the pitiful funding for services like Sure Start down to nothing, and agonising as to whether we can afford to supply free milk and anything better than a turkey twizzler for someone who we expect to grow up and pay our pension for us.

Then wonder why they turn into problem adults.

I say stand against the mean minded, misanthropic weasle words of McTavish, people our our greatest resource, lets maximise the possibilities not punish the deficiencies!

lemonjelly

ruggedtoast wrote: »

This kind of reductionist neo-liberal "commonsense" is contrived to strike a vein with most people.

Creating an ephemeral outgroup of shirkers to feel angry about has long been a tool of those wanting to create a socially divided, non-pluralistic society, for the gain of their own subgroup.

Who constitutes able to work but not willing to; people with arms and legs; children; a woman who quit work because her boss kept touching her or a man on a construction site whos boss refused to provide minimum safety equipment?

Forcing people back into work houses where McTavish would have them, too frightened to challenge poor employment conditions or turn down exploitative employment offers, would just lead us back to Dickensian times.

There is a problem with a benefits culture in this country, but it is a problem driven by a paucity of ambition, poor education, and a genuine lack of opportunities in sub stratas of our society.

We fail children, constantly, every day, kids turn up to badly resourced poorly constructed schools to be taught by teachers who have already written themselves off, let alone their progeny. We then send them back to chaotic, dismal homes where they are poorly fed, neglected, shouted at, and told that they will amount to nothing more than the things around them.

And we say and do nothing to improve their lots, paying billions to support financial services and foreign wars and strangling the pitiful funding for services like Sure Start down to nothing, and agonising as to whether we can afford to supply free milk and anything better than a turkey twizzler for someone who we expect to grow up and pay our pension for us.

Then wonder why they turn into problem adults.

I say stand against the mean minded, misanthropic weasle words of McTavish, people our our greatest resource, lets maximise the possibilities not punish the deficiencies!

Great & insightful post ruggedtoast.:T

(though one or 2 a little earlier are a little more eloquent...:D)

lemonjelly

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Now try to play the ball, not the man.

lemonjelly wrote: »

Typical double standards.

The majority of your posts include insults and/or personal attacks.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

My my my, someone is an angry little spitter this morning.

Now try responding to any of the points at hand.

And proving my point perfectly...

You want to argue that a poster hasn't replied to your points, & when they do, you throw your toys out the pram...

Hypocrite.

StevieJ

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

I would also put a national DNA database to a referendum. I would like there to be one, but I think that would need to be on a referendum. Could you imagine the reduction in crime rates, increase in conviction rates? Once set up, crime rates would plummet overnight.

Anyway, that turned in to a bit of verbal diaoreah. But that is my 2 pence. Have a good evening.

A great post but I totally disagree on DNA database, acceptable for past crimes, maybe but cross contamination could cause awful problems for many innocent people, and going forward planted evidence will obviously become more prevalent.

ruggedtoast

lemonjelly wrote: »

And proving my point perfectly...

You want to argue that a poster hasn't replied to your points, & when they do, you throw your toys out the pram...

Hypocrite.

Hypocrite and a nob!

God it feels good to get it out in the open. I've been trying to deny myself the joy of properly abusing McTavish in the interests of forum decorum for a while but, since it turned out he's a middle aged rich kid who is mentally still living at home, I just don't care anymore.

Good gried McTavish, God blessed you with nobs when he was dishing them out, its just a shame that he stuck the extra ones on your forehead, stuck a silver spoon in your mouth and let you loose on the internet.

:A

silvercar

I have no problem paying for those in need to receive benefit. I accept that as I earn more I need to contribute more.

I do object to funding those who have made a lifetime career out of benefits, who are capable of working who choose not to. I object to them getting my hard earned money for doing nothing while they are capable.

At the moment I have sympathy for those people facing a increased burden on their tax bill when they are putting all the effort into their work and careers. It must be so galling to work hard, not spend so much quality time with your kids, when the extra you would get on benefits makes your hourly rate worth only pennies.

I would make two changes:

Address the balance so that the margins between the working and non-working family units increases. So those working on lower incomes pay less tax.

Reduce benefits further for any family unit where no-one has worked for more than a year and even more for two years.

StevieJ

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

For an ordinary, computer literate, reasonably intelligent person, libraries are largely obsolete.

You can search for just about anything online and find it quicker than in a library. You can buy books online, either paper of electronic versions. You can do research online. etc.

For specialist, rare or expensive books, I see the point.

For a central access point for the technologically illiterate, I see the point.

For the very poor or very old, I see the point.

But I don't think libraries serve the purpose they used to do.

And video killed the radio star (and Cinema) - I think not

chucky

lemonjelly wrote: »

And proving my point perfectly...

You want to argue that a poster hasn't replied to your points, & when they do, you throw your toys out the pram...

Hypocrite.

why are you getting all Karl Henry on us?

Percy1983

Scary I agree with Hamish yet can't seem to wake up, is this really happening?

As for arguements it to split society, to a point I want that to happen, it would split into want to work and don't want to work. Yes those who don't want to work won't have much but that is there choice.

To me there should be no spare money after essentials and a small fund, when it comes to xmas they should have to explain to little Jimmy that he doesn't get anything because mummy and daddy can't be bothered going to work.

Right now the definition of povery is if you have less than the average, with that my mum and dad are in poverty as they only have a 32" TV.

lemonjelly

chucky wrote: »

why are you getting all Karl Henry on us?

Be careful.

I'm a race car in the red...

I'm one step away from going all Nigel de Jong on you.;)