Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

David Cameron declares war on welfare culture.

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


On topic:


Labour turned the UK into a nation of couch potatoes. Cameron is trying to fix this mess. And all many of you see is an elitist Oxford boy "taking from the little man". Please.


This isn't really true though is it. Britain was booming, all but about 2 people I know had jobs during the Labour years(and yes, they were and are scroungers). The majority of people in this country are not scroungers at all, the majority of people want to work and will work. There are just so few opportunities compared to how it used to be and there are many people trying and struggling to find work.

And yes, Cameron is an 'elitist oxford boy' taking from the little man. You've been a member here long enough, have you not been paying attention?




posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Theres a television license handout? How can the person charging you a bill pay it for you? Tricky tricky. Pull it outta one pocket and n put in another one.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by skuly
 


This is what I want to see from welfare reform: I know several women *cough, no disrespect ladies*, who purposely got themselves knocked up as a late teenager to get a free house, free money every week and never have to worry about getting a job. Seriously, I've had women admit to me that that is why they had children so young!

This is where I get angry. I have reserved having children for a time when I am in a stable relationship and have the funds and accomodation to do so. It just so happens that I no longer want to bring a child into this messed up world but back when I did, I wanted to be sure I could support one.

This is the major aspect of the welfare culture that grinds my gears. Even worse is when a young woman gets herself knocked up, ditches the father, then lives on benefits and gets CSA from the working father. The working father busts his balls to pay the CSA and his own bills, barely see's his kids whilst the mother lives on easy street reaping all the rewards. This is where I would like to see the most reform.
edit on 24-6-2012 by Wide-Eyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


On topic:


Labour turned the UK into a nation of couch potatoes. Cameron is trying to fix this mess. And all many of you see is an elitist Oxford boy "taking from the little man". Please.


This isn't really true though is it. Britain was booming, all but about 2 people I know had jobs during the Labour years(and yes, they were and are scroungers). The majority of people in this country are not scroungers at all, the majority of people want to work and will work. There are just so few opportunities compared to how it used to be and there are many people trying and struggling to find work.

1) In what way was Britain 'booming'?

2) Unemployment had been falling since the peak of 3 million in 1993, a trend that was started (by the Tories) long before Labour came in 1997. Please don't credit Tony Blair with this.

3) There's always a delay between policy changes and social effect. Yes, people had jobs in the Labour years. Yes, things were OK for a while. But then look what happened. Their policy on welfare directly caused the "welfare culture" we have today.

4) There are "few opportunities" because so many jobs have gone to foreign workers, and so much work has been outsourced overseas (especially manufacturing). Again, thank New Labour.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


I'll probably get named and shamed for this but for once i actually agree with Cameron, Those who fiddle and pervert the benefit system should be taught that hard working individuals will not indirectly pay their living costs through the absurd amount of tax taken off their wages.
Those who see fit to have a family without first even considering the financial implications it involves should be sent a clear message that they cannot recklessly live off the money earned through others blood-sweat and tears and that they are responsible for their actions.

Strange thing is i was on housing and Job seekers allowance not so long ago for just about a year and i actually wish somebody had said "No More!" to me; there and then so that i could have got off my fat lazy ass and begun my life before i became a morbid recluse who despised authority and therefore was UN-willing to work for 1 of the many £%£HOLE managers there are out there.
But alas no, The government just kept paying the money in, Life was easy as i stuffed myself with fast-food and dined heartily with the money that i "earned" through the benefit system.
I could if i had so wished have started a family of my own at the time as well! That way i could have "earned" even more benefits and bought up a child happy in the knowledge that others would pay for it's upbringing.
But no, I didn't.
I realized in doing this there was no HONOR.
There was no DECENCY.
How could i be happy knowing anything i accomplished i had not earned but rather "Borrowed"*cOUGH* Stolen from others through a system designed to take money from those who worked so very hard to build their lives and happiness just so i could take a cut and sit on my ass printing off CV's.
Benefit's are brilliant don't get me wrong, They are truly deserved by many unfortunate souls who for whatever reason just cannot cope with life in this day and age.
But the sad fact is a lot of people abuse the system, Not only that, They justify themselves abusing the system,
They know who they are..

There are job's if you are truly willing to truly commit to hard work, Everyone has a right to happiness BUT If you earn your happiness it makes life so much more worthwhile.

~Ted
edit on 24/6/12 by TedHodgson because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


Yeah ok all fair points to a certain extent. I will give you my point of view on each one:

1) There were lots and lots of jobs. I could literally quit one job and walk into another within a week or two.

2) I was only 12 in 1993, my working career didn't start untill 1997. I don't credit Tony Blair or new labour with the opportunities I had back then, I put it down to a generally good economy at the time.

3) Yes, this is a good point. However, I think you answer the cause of this in point 4...

4) I cannot argue with this point at all except for the fact that this wasn't really Labours fault at all. This is to do with greedy corporations/large companies outsourcing the work to countries where the workforce cost a hell of a lot less. To blame the Labour party for this is a little naive because most western countries have been doing this for the last few decades. It's only the last few years it has really had an impact.

Look at the U.S, they have the same problem. Their most successful corporations have most of the manual labour being done in third world countries. You can't blame the Labour party for that. The truth is, it really doesn't matter who is running the show, the same problems will still crop up because of globalism. We both know this and yet we still both forget now and then.

How easily we get sucked into this 2 party farce, we are only human.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


I agree, there a lot of people who take the piss. However, in the grand scheme of things, these people are still a very small minority of the UK public. I think there are strong indicators of piss takers and genuine job seekers. The problem is though, that jobs are few and far between at the moment and although there are some jobs, I really don't think there are enough to employ everyone in this country. Scratch that, I KNOW THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS to employ every single person in this country. So where does that leave us?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


Of course there's not enough Job's, what's the point in having available Jobs when many are happy on Benefits?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


Dammit Ted, stop it! You are killing my train of thought with your defeatist attitude!


ETA: Bloody typical northern monkey.
edit on 24-6-2012 by Wide-Eyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I remember reading an article a while back about Europe's finances (sic) in which David Camoron declared that, "Germany should pay more." Britain can't afford it he argued, let the rich Germans shoulder the bailout bill. I remember wondering if, now the boot was on the other foot, this might precipitate a little more empathy from David and his ilk. I guess it didn't.

Can't remember if this was the actual article but it was similar. Germany should pay more



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


Your train of thought must be full of passengers on benefits, Make like Cameron and convert them into UN-needed train staff that are paid with the money the world doesn't have in order to solve the crisis caused by the many people the world doesn't need



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


Why do that when we can pay eastern europeans and chinamen to do it for £3 an hour!?

Or did I get your point twisted?
edit on 24-6-2012 by Wide-Eyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


Because then your train of thought would be filled with people on benefits and Asian folk paid below minimum wage to do the Job's that the people on benefits should be doing for the appropriate hourly rate!

Your train of thought may very well arrive at a destination you didn't intend to arrive at.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


Now you're just confusing me!


Damn you!!! I'm tired, I will re-read this tomorrow and wonder what the hell either of us were yacking on about. I will still blame you though for derailing my train of thought. I don't care who was on board when it crashed, it's still all your fault!
edit on 24-6-2012 by Wide-Eyes because: derail, not disrail...



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


It wasn't my fault! Your train of thought only had recipient's of benefits on-board, Nobody was driving, The train crashed HAH


Star for you anyway, I didn't make your mind explode....Or did i......
edit on 24/6/12 by TedHodgson because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


No, not at all. Uh oh, my heads feeling a little swollen, uh, oh , uh, arg, uh, noooooooooo:




posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


The UK government may clamp down on the benefit culture, and save money, which they will end up paying out again for the social problems it causes, one way or another...

The benefit system is abused. Nowadays people seem to feel they have a right to have a family, regardless of whether they can afford one, or not, because they know that ultimately, the state will pick up the tab.

And it would seem the people with the largest families are the ones who can least afford them....

I,m not sure where the answer lies...



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Personally I think like student tuition fees this has been timed to create a situation where a portion of society rebels against the authorities, gets slapped down and creates the groundwork to discourage further protests.

While I do agree the welfare state needs a complete overhaul as does our entire system of governance, this in my opinion is a set-up to get a specific response from a small section of society to impose further restrictions on the rest.
edit on 25/6/12 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Hey Cameron, how about stop the derivatives fraud and you can really help? Of course you little minion you aint gonna do jack but cut cut cut. While you sign on the garbage derivatives of the banks.


UK see Iceland for a example.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
2 bits of anecdotal evidence:

1) I'm ashamed to say that in my own family there is 1 particular lot who have always lived in council houses.

My grandmother had no choice, her husband died and she had to bring up the kids herself, she worked multiple jobs and just couldn't afford everthing. This is I think what benefits are for.

One of her sons got a council house as soon as he could, and although he and his wife both worked they remained in council housing all of their lives.

2 of their 3 children now live in council houses and have never worked, they live entriely off benefits, the girl has 6 kids to 5 different men but has never been married, she's 44 now and her kids are also now living in council houses.

It breeds a kind of culture that this is your life choice and they expect to get it and live for free or rather off the back of the hard work of everyone else.

Makes my blood boil.

2) Where I'm living now I know a lad who's 19. He lives at home with his parents and is going to college about 10 miles away.

Because of how much his parents earn (and they're not rich or anything) he gets no help at all with the costs.

He has to pay for the course and he has to pay for the transport, etc.

On his course is a girl who also lives in our village. She is 18 and a single mother. She lives in a brand new very nice flat paid for by the council.

She also gets benefits and child benefits worth around £1300 per month - that's AFTER her rents been paid for her.

She also gets the college course for free, and all of her transport etc paid too.

I do not think this is what benefits are for.

Successive governments have made it too easy to decide not to work, and those that aren't working get far too much money.

They should not be able to afford cars, holidays, etc, etc, etc.

State help should be to make sure you have a roof over your head and food on the table - not to live as well as, or even better than, those who dilligently go to work.

It's not Camerons fault, it's mainly been Labour who've led us to this in their attempt to buy votes.

PS - he's saying housing benefits cost £2 billion per year - the blinking Olympics are set to cost us £24 billion - the first thing they should have done was to scrap that scam.
edit on 25-6-2012 by Power_Semi because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join