Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

'Troubled' Families Could Be Legally Banned From Spending Benefits On Alcohol And Tobacco

page: 14
21
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
Well if the addict parents can not buy their drink/fags ect Then the childrens lives are going to be even worse. As the parents will be cold turkeying. Raving mad and stressed out cold turkey parents. Kids will get hurt just being around them.


There wont even be any cold turkey period. They will just precure there Alcohol & Tobacco from a 3rd party at double the cost. So the kids will get less in the long run.
edit on 18-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by TheFlash
 


"Incorrect"

How so? Essentially if this ever came to pass then the Goverment is controlling what you can and cannot do at both micro and maco levels.

You think that is a good idea? LoL
edit on 15-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)


If you had read beyond the word "incorrect" in my post you would understand "how so".



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


"Incorrect. Under this proposal people are free to spend their money any way they choose."

Correct me if im wrong but are People not allready free to spend there money the way they choose?

"They can go get jobs and buy anything they want."

Where are these socalled Jobs of which you speak? There is mass unemployment out there! And the Jobs that are there are all minimum wage Monkey work!

"I think it is perfectly reasonable however for the Government to have a say in how people spend the Governement's money."

So i suppose you think that the goverment done a bang up job bailing out the bankers and their like? The goverment are nothing more the a shower of over privileged inbred halfwits that are responsible for our current predicament. Its plain to see for all, just look out the window!

So i ask you again, how so? When they cant spend it on "Fags and Booze" where is there freedom to purchase?
edit on 18-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
The money spent on booze and smokes is often money that could be spent on their children.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
And those that have succesfully demonised the most vulnerable and needy in our society are now pulling out all the stops to prevent us from learning how they have been exploiting another convenient expenses loophole for their own personal gain.

The expenses watchdog is seeking a Freedom Of Information request on disclosure of how MP's have been letting out their second homes to other MP's and banking the money.

The Speaker of The House, John Bercow, a Tory MP, has said publication would be a security risk.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Indeed it might be, but details of those arrangements should be made public and I fail to see any justification for not doing so.

And yes, it is within the rules - which of course MP's set up for themselves - but also the vast majority of benefits claimed through the Benefit system are well within the rules and a damn sight more morally just than those claimed by those arrogant, self-righteous, amoral bastards in Westminster!



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
In one way I agree this is a good idea. I think it needs to be done in the United States as well. I work as a cashier and I often see families on food stamps buying a full cart of nothing but junk: Little Debbies, Chips, Lunchables, pudding cups, sodas, etc. There is not one vegetable to be seen. There is nothing green or healthy. Parents come waddling in, or maybe rolling in with a cart, while their kids are also waddling around behind them.

Really, there needs to be a law that food stamps need to be spent on FOOD, healthy FOOD.

But in another way, if they can control what we spend our money on, this control may be used later to stop people from purchasing anything. If someone can stop people from buying certain things, eventually they could control all the money and stop people from being able to buy anything. I fear this may happen one day when there is a cashless society and some people are undesirable. They could be stopped from buying items they need. While no one needs to buy junk, I can understand that sometimes people on food stamps may want to have a party now and then. There should be a limit to how much people can spend on pure junk though. A birthday cake now and then isn't going to hurt. A little treat now and then is ok. It might be better to buy yogurt or something healthier though. There are ways to enjoy nice tasting foods, even sweet things that are healthy. When the majority of your shopping cart is junk though, you need help.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardZZZ
The money spent on booze and smokes is often money that could be spent on their children.


Yes because thats what would happen. Stop them buying Fags n Booze and it will be fruit and vegetables for all! Please read the full thread, this is nothing new here.
edit on 18-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


They should find a way of stopping them from buying illegal drugs with that money, which I have seen to be the far more pressing issue, however everyone cried when they wanted to start pee testing the welfare recipients in Florida... I think before you recieve those kind of benefits it should be proven that you are not on illegal drugs. If you are you can never be a fully functioning responsible person anyway so you will likely never have work. Just saying.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


They should find a way of stopping them from buying illegal drugs with that money, which I have seen to be the far more pressing issue, however everyone cried when they wanted to start pee testing the welfare recipients in Florida... I think before you recieve those kind of benefits it should be proven that you are not on illegal drugs. If you are you can never be a fully functioning responsible person anyway so you will likely never have work. Just saying.


I think the day we start drug testing British citizens rich or poor, Black or White is the day the revolution begins. Think of it this way, if the were to test the politicians waht do you think the results would find???
edit on 18-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


I'm talking in the USA it would not be the same, we have plenty easily manipulated dumbos here.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by andy06shake
 


I'm talking in the USA it would not be the same, we have plenty easily manipulated dumbos here.


Snap!



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537


Well I'm the taxpayer paying for their welfare/unemployment so I should have a say in where the money is used... I also feel they should be drug tested to be able to collect... I'm NOT supporting an addiction...



TheN more money is spent because the urinalysis Are not free And anyone with an iq over 25 can
pass it. they substitute their urine with their kids or a friends kids or someone clean. buy synthetic urine or steal a bottle at The local head shop which get it offline URINELUCK they can only watch
you if your on criminal probation. they carry it in something like a travel shampoo bottle make sure its warm microwave it and then crotch it in their pants/underwear. it will be at body temp 95-98 if just crotched for an hour. when they get to the place to take the urinalysis they are given a cup and sent to bathroom. in the bathroom they just put the clean urine in the cup instead of their own then give it back. drug testing will cost more and produce nothing.
edit on 18-10-2012 by popcornmafia because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Doing or not doing drugs doesn't mean much when it comes to being functional people. The three cokeheads I know are all holding careers fine, lawyer, chef and foreman. I also know plenty of screwups that never held a job for more than a month and also don't do drugs.



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
And now we have internet success story eBay(UK)Ltd reportedly paying £1.2million tax on estimated profit of £181million which by my reckoning equates to approximately 0.66% tax.

www.bbc.co.uk...

I noticed that it's claimed in the same report that Amazon have paid a big fat zero tax on sales of £7.6billion over the last 3 years.
Taking a conservative 20% profit margin that would equate to approximately £1.5billion profit - on which they paid absolutely nothing in tax.

But by all means continue to vent your anger and disgust at the poor, needy and vulnerable whilst the obscenely wealthy, powerful and influential continue to bleed this country dry.

People may accuse me of labouring the point here, and they'd be correct - how many more examples do people need to read about before they realise just how messed up and upside down this is?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   


In one way I agree this is a good idea. I think it needs to be done in the United States as well. I work as a cashier and I often see families on food stamps buying a full cart of nothing but junk: Little Debbies, Chips, Lunchables, pudding cups, sodas, etc. There is not one vegetable to be seen. There is nothing green or healthy. Parents come waddling in, or maybe rolling in with a cart, while their kids are also waddling around behind them.
reply to post by jessieg
 


Maybe they grow their own. maybe they get their fresh stuff from another shop because it is better quality.
I know if i was judged based on what i buy in one shop it would be wrong because i get different things from different shops.
edit on 31-10-2012 by lifeform11 because: added more to the quote.
edit on 31-10-2012 by lifeform11 because: typo



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
From Fullfact.org, 13/11/12:



Sun and Daily Mail back down over 120,000 'problem' families


After 105 days of unanswered emails, complaints to the PCC, long waits for responses, several articles and slow progress in negotiations, the Sun and Daily Mail newspapers have finally corrected their articles in print about a report produced eariler this year by the Government's 'troubled families tsar' Louise Casey.


fullfact.org...


But of course, the retraction will hardly mitigate the damage already caused.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Delete please.
edit on 30/9/14 by Ezappa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lil Drummerboy
Welfare should go away entirely
It should not be the governments responsibility or the taxpayers
that supply the money to the governments to feed or house those that live off the system as they do.


So they really should be slaves or better still die.






top topics



 
21
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join