Work or be homeless!

churchrat

hi
to those who are made uncomfortable/cross etc by this and other threads on this board I would say "forget all about it" I have just realised that many of the regular posters on this board come here for the argument, it could be the 10 min argument or or the full half hour--they don't care they just like to give patronising, rude and frequently unhelpful advice linked to comments about the op's lifestyle which has nothing to do with the question being asked. I would also not take all advice given on here as being correct-- asthe posters are fond of saying "you must take responsibility for your own actions " so don't trust them.:cool:
I do have a question today, however that I hope someone can help with --what is !!!!!!??
thanks inadvance
ps--I do realise this is not a "question" thread, but wanted to say it anyway.

ixwood

For F's Sake...

churchrat

oooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

glossgal

"The thought of making me terminate otr give the children up for adoption is abhorrent. As it is estimated that children cost half a million maybe we should see peoples bank statments-allow them 1 child per every half mil in savings? What about people with pre desposed tendancy to illness-sterilise them?"

Not getting at you personally mishmash but surely the point is that people have CHOICES and the choice to have kids when you can't support them causes a chain of events for which the person is responsible. Termination and adoption aren't needed if you possess brain cells.There is an alarming trend for benefit claimants (and peeps in general I feel) to wallow in their own martyrdom as if they are the victims of some great injustice when they are actually guilty of poor judgement and having a victim mentality. I think the jobless angle is a red herring really, social housing is abused far more by people indiscriminatey breeding than it is joe bloggs wandering off to the job centre once a fortnight. I too am a working class girl from a very deprived area and let me tell you anyone who thinks some young women don't have kids on purpose is deluded. Ive seen it, heard it, know all about it (thankfully sensible enough not to have the t-shirt!)

SquatNow

clutton wrote: »

Squatter says """"the workhouses and soup kitchens... which is essentially what is being talked about here... a handful of people end up owning all the land, millions of empty houses, with everyone crammed into big sheds and sent out to work for the benefit of the landed elite. """

are you taking "substances ? or r u just plain bonkers !!!!!!

I hate to tell you this, but that situation wasn't imagined, that actually happened during the depression in the 20s, and there is no reason at all that it couldn't happen again.

Most of the land in the UK is owned by a very small number of people, (99% by about 0.1% if I remember correctly, although it could be 0.001%) and if there were mass-reposessions, the only people who would be in a position to buy (since no-one would be able to borrow money) would be those holding large amounts of cash... the very VERY rich.

People mistakenly assume that if things got bad and there were mass reposessions, the government would step in and somehow allow people to keep living in their houses... this is not the case. The houses would be sold at auction, with no reserve if need be, and would then belong to whoever bought them who would be free to do what they like with them... rent them out, leave them empty, or even burn them down if they wants.

The government defends the rights of land owners over all other, as if they don't then they lose all power... the government become meaningless. If no-one was defending land rights people could just go and setup a tent in a field and grow their own food and pay no taxes. If people were self sufficient they wouldn't have to take any notice of the government.

Essentially:
Government = Defense of Land Rights.

Every 18 years house prices peak, the economy collapses and house prices crash. At the bottom of the crash, very rich land speculators buy up tens of thousands of houses, many at auction, for a pittence. This 18 year cycle is created deliberately for this exact reason... it makes some rich people even richer.

None of this is in any way a secret! There are plenty of books on it.

An excelent example was the bloke who gave the labour part 3/4 million pounds... he bought land for a pittence years ago, sat on it, bribed the government to grant planning permission, then sold it. Turned less than £1m in more than £20m.

mishmash

HI Glossgal

Well it was not my victim mentality that made me get the t shirt it was an accident (they do happen) and a spineless lad who said he would support me and baby, he just did not add that he only meant for a year or so.

You talk of all these people having children deliberately to scrounge benefits, I am sure for each one you find there are many more in a similar situation to me. I have met far more single mums struggling to work and parent alone than I have the others. I hope you never end up in a position where you are villified for a situation that ends up out of your controll.

I was clear I am concerned about the minority of those out of work, and this is passed on to the next generation. I just do not believe that forced termination or adoption is the solutiuon.

I cannot believe that a sight that I have held in high regard for some time fosters views that adolf himself would be proud of.

churchrat

hi mishmash
please ignore them. they don't really care what you think and just want to argue. I had to ask what !!!!!! stood for just now because I hadn't come across it on any of the other boards, but I can really see why it is needed on this one.
have an enjoyable weekend--up to anything good?

SquatNow

mishmash wrote: »

Well it was not my victim mentality that made me get the t shirt it was an accident (they do happen) and a spineless lad who said he would support me and baby, he just did not add that he only meant for a year or so.

You talk of all these people having children deliberately to scrounge benefits, I am sure for each one you find there are many more in a similar situation to me. I have met far more single mums struggling to work and parent alone than I have the others. I hope you never end up in a position where you are villified for a situation that ends up out of your controll.

I was clear I am concerned about the minority of those out of work, and this is passed on to the next generation. I just do not believe that forced termination or adoption is the solutiuon.

There is a significant difference between single mother who have been abandoned by their partners and "chavs" as people call them pushing out kids at a rate of knots. My mother was a single mum, and she made a lot of effort bringing me up.

What people have an issue with is, quite litterally, single mums living entirely off benefits, with 3 kids by 3 different fathers, none of which she makes any effort to bring up properly.

There are a lot of struggling single parents out there trying their best, but there are also a LOT of spongers. It is sad that those that make an effort get tarred with the same brush.

mishmash wrote: »

I cannot believe that a sight that I have held in high regard for some time fosters views that adolf himself would be proud of.

It's not people on this site, it's most of the country I'm afraid. It's because of the yawning gep between rich and poor. All the working people are being taxed so heavily to support the unemployed that they are becoming resentful.

mishmash wrote: »

The thought of making me terminate otr give the children up for adoption is abhorrent. As it is estimated that children cost half a million maybe we should see peoples bank statments-allow them 1 child per every half mil in savings? What about people with pre desposed tendancy to illness-sterilise them?

I agree that forced terminations/adoptions are totally unacceptable, but that only leaves 2 options:
A) The contraceptive injection or implants until a couple have been married/co-habitting for 2 years and the potential father has a job that will allow him to earn enough to support his family.
Taxpayers fund all costs of the breeding of children in full.

Ultimately, there is NO middle ground. I know of someone at work who rents a small flat rather than live with his GF with whom he has 2 children. Why? Because otherwise she would lose all her benefits and they couldn't afford to live.

Of the above 2 choices, the logical and ethical one would be option A, combined with a form of land taxation to allow part of option B.

Land taxation would mean people wouldn't be in the situation where they can only afford a family if they are on benefits.

The problem is that in order to support a wife and 2 kids, a man needs to earn enough to buy a 3 bedroomed house and cover the bills, and in most cases the "average" wage is WELL below the level that will allow that.

Basically the problem is that speculation in land values has pushed land prices up so high that people can only afford to have a family if the state funds their accomodation.

churchrat

thankgod for people like you Gorgeous George, the future of the world is safe:j

glossgal

mishmash wrote: »

HI Glossgal

Well it was not my victim mentality that made me get the t shirt it was an accident (they do happen) and a spineless lad who said he would support me and baby, he just did not add that he only meant for a year or so.

You talk of all these people having children deliberately to scrounge benefits, I am sure for each one you find there are many more in a similar situation to me. I have met far more single mums struggling to work and parent alone than I have the others. I hope you never end up in a position where you are villified for a situation that ends up out of your controll.

I was clear I am concerned about the minority of those out of work, and this is passed on to the next generation. I just do not believe that forced termination or adoption is the solutiuon.

I cannot believe that a sight that I have held in high regard for some time fosters views that adolf himself would be proud of.

I am genuinely not condemning you or anyone else in that postion, s**t happens of course it does and you make the best of it. My problem is that people rarely seem to accept responsibility for it-it's always someone elses fault and the state picks up the tab. I, like many working people, am simply tired of this culture. The reasons for this mass !!!!lessness are complex and can't be wiped out overnight so I don't actually agree with making the jobless homeless as it happens. However, to equate realism and uncomfortable home truths with nazi ideology is, ironically, to me every bit as destructive and ignorant as the fascism you accuse me of.