Good Model Citizens Are Suckers

So i was watching TV the other day, bad habit i know, and i upon flicking i found a show on British TV called 'skint'.

This show is a documentary of life in low income and high unemployment areas following several people in their daily lives showing how they cope with no job in a run down area.

One such family that was focused on was a mother of 21 with 5 kids from 3 different fathers, living in a council house with her husband. She has never had a job and her husband may have done in the past but currently does not. They both stay at home looking after the family.

She was paying no rent, had all kinds of benefit help with bills lived with her 5 children and husband with their PS3 and huge screen TV. They did not cheat the system and did not do any crime or side work to supplement their lives, they are "who the welfare system is meant for" in the best possible sense.

This is were everything just shattered in my mind....

In addition to their free house, she receives £1600 (2400$) every month to clothe and feed the family.

I have been working hard for 10 years to earn that much money every month, while i pay my rent, feed myself, pay my taxes (car, income and council) and delude myself with dreams of owning a house and starting my own family.

WHY THE HELL SHOULD I HAVE DONE THIS?!

All i want is a family and to provide for them, but I've wasted 10 years preparing for it. I have always paid my taxes i have no loans, no criminal record no house and no family and im not much closer apart from my pay being more than what it was 10 years ago.

Ive played the game as its "meant to be played" in the governments eyes but all that's happened is that ive become a sucker with no life and no family paying for others to have all i ever wanted for myself.

What kind of message is this sending to the younger generations and what kind of absolute implosion will happen when the country has no one working because getting off your ass and doing something about it actually puts it further away from you.

I'm really upset. If i were to be a scourging lazy work dodging lay about tomorrow, i bet despite my years of tax i will get nothing because i have proved my self capable.

How depressing is this?!?!

Sad times indeed, i cannot last and it wont last. RIP Great Britain.

Sadly, you are right.
And it isn't just in Great Britain, it exists on this side of the pond too.

Hi Biigs,

Sad reality and unfortunately these people get sucked into the system and in the end just rely on all the benefits that they can get whilst doing the least possible... and to think that the kids will be educated to do exactly the same thing!!

BUT, my hat goes off to you, even though it is sickening and heart wrenching to see this go on, at least you can go to bed on a night time after a hard days graft knowing that your tiredness is from honest work... and that your family knows that they can depend on YOU and not the system.

Kindest respects

Rodinus

reply to post by Biigs


hear hear,,,, i work for minimum cash... always a couple of months work,, a couple not,,
for me, its the same if i work or not,,, pays the same...

but hey,, as long as i have coffee and tobacco,, its all good,,,

money is a cruel hallucination...

Well the only major difference here is that i do not live a terrible area and i do have job prospects.

Im not sure whether this is bad for people who, like myself, wonder "why bother" or bad for the people who dont know any better and are sucked into the life style.

Supporting family's between jobs is fine with me 100%, but those with no aspirations to ever get a job and live "off da social" forever, just ruins it for the people who genuinely try and for the people who support the habit.

This is not a new issue and has been a problem since the late 80s, its 30 years later and we are still providing this.

Oh and lets not forget that family's in areas "that got nuffin to do" end up turning to crime for fun and money. Wasting police/court/hospital time and money daily with cat and mouse crap that the youngsters cant be charged for anyway!

remember coppers get more than a shelf stacker at a supermarket and you have a handful chasing a 12 year old on a motor bike for hours, thing about just that tiny incident and what that may cost.

In the USA if you commit a federal crime, you lose certain rights.

Call me crazy but i think no job should = no vote.

Why ask a person what they think the country should do, when they have literally no clue about anything but how to keep getting their stupid benefits Its a self defeating loop of stupidity and tolerance toward stupidity.

reply to post by Biigs


A part of me wants to start leeching from society,,, as bad as i possibly could,,,

this is because i have lost faith in the system.. nothing good can spawn from it...
---- it could hasten the degeneration of the machine,,,,
anyway,,, the end is not going to be pretty,,,,

the great pyramid is standing on quicksand,,,,

This is the result of fifty years of the lunatic left and cultural Marxism that has polluted every publicly funded institution. The reprehensible behaviour of the lazy and feckless is rewarded while those that do the work that funds these backward ideologies are penalised and vilified as various ists for daring to speak out against it.

reply to post by solve


I suppose we have to just be thankful the numbers of family's and people in this situation is not any higher, but thats nothing to do with the broken system, just the extent of its far reaching and long term damage to society.

As for immigrants working, claiming benefits and having kids in the country while getting similar treatment, well thats another rant for another thread.

reply to post by Biigs


its getting worse,,, all the smart good people i know,,, dont have children,,,

and all the (sorry but its true) trash i know are breeding like rabbits,,,,
this really concerns me....
why make lots of children when you cant provide....

remind me of the movie--- idiocracy,,,

edit,,, by trash i meant drunks,, and violent apemen,,who have lots of children,,, you know what i mean...

Honestly i don't care for people on long term unemployment benefits or do i take notice these days.

I've been unemployed 5 months now (British citizen) and haven't asked any organisation for a cent and still pay my rent and local taxes in full. Iv'e buckled down on my savings and lived the life of minor poverty until i'm back on my feet. Why don't i accept state benefits? BECAUSE I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR MY GODDAMN SELF, that's why.

More people especially the ones popping out children like there's no tomorrow need to understand this. They need to be taught pride and respect for themselves and for society. I go out and do odd jobs here and there, digging gardens, washing cars, plastering walls, fixing computers for a few quid (£), so i'm able to scrape by.

I'm not getting any younger and too want children but i know i cannot be a responsible adult and father unless i can set an example to my children.

Call it careless or mean but i will not feel sorry for these people when the benefit cuts bite harder and there children start to suffer. They should have thought about that and should have there children fostered into a loving family with hard work and merit to support them. Stick a 2 child benefit limit on the welfare system for a start and go from there i say.

EDIT: I should say also that i'm aware there are genuine cases of people out there that need this money to survive such as disability living allowance. As is becoming the case more often though: depression is a mental illness not a disability and i'm sick of seeing cases of people being well off on the system because of it. They need state care not free money there's a difference.

I guess i'm a sucker then

reply to post by MongusePro


here is my problem,, if i choose to become a father one day,, and i am happily married,,,,

of course the parents need full time jobs to get (monopoly) pieces of paper.....

how its a good thing to be out working 8-plus hours a day?

shouldnt i be raising my child?

who raises our children really? the parents apparently arent, based on current events,, like stockholms little stone throwing, car burning little angels,,
where are their parents?,,,

Originally posted by solve
reply to post by MongusePro

 

here is my problem,, if i choose to become a father one day,, and i am happily married,,,,

of course the parents need full time jobs to get (monopoly) pieces of paper.....

how its a good thing to be out working 8-plus hours a day?

shouldnt i be raising my child?

who raises our children really? the parents apparently aren't, based on current events,, like stockholms little stone throwing, car burning little angels,,
where are their parents?,,,

Oh Solve... i don't no were to begin but you hit the nail on the head for my (and many hard working peoples) life's conundrums.

Iv'e worked all my life since i was 14 and this is the 1st break i've had after being made redundant. It gives you a lot of time to think about such things and causes internal chaos. I much prefer (for now) to be working 8-10 hrs per day and getting a bank role then having time to think but i digress...

This has crossed my mind many times.... how in these days of high prices and low wages does one afford to have any time to themselves let alone raise a child. I have yet to come up with the answer and have already has 2 failed businesses in the process.

Were heading towards disaster with two extremes of children in the future generations which dont' look good. The ones who have benefit seeking parents who don't work and will likely have there children follow in there footsteps. Then there's the children of the middle class working mom and dad who as you point out don't spend anytime with there children due to lack of time and energy. This causes them to grow up emotionally detached from society and often they take years to become model working citizens.

I don't know the answer but i know something has got to change.

reply to post by Biigs

How depressing is this?!?!

Not nearly as depressing as realizing that YOUR tax dollars are paying to support her.

Originally posted by hotel1
This is the result of fifty years of the lunatic left and cultural Marxism that has polluted every publicly funded institution. The reprehensible behaviour of the lazy and feckless is rewarded while those that do the work that funds these backward ideologies are penalised and vilified as various ists for daring to speak out against it.

edit on 23-5-2013 by hotel1 because: (no reason given)

Rubbish, the welfare system is due to liberals, not Marxists. Liberalism is not socialism.

"Liberalism is not socialism and it never will be" - Winston Churchill, Liberal Party candidate for Dundee, 1908.

The social safety net was started by the middle, and upper middle classes, to help appease the working class, and keep them from revolting.

The social safety net does more for the upper classes, than it does for the poor. Without it there would be property crime like never seen before anywhere. What about the expense of dealing with the health problems that would spread? All those homeless people everywhere? Do you really think not having welfare would be better? Just so you save a couple of dollars from your pay check, a pay check that doesn't pay you the full fruits of your labour, even before the government takes it's cut? You not only pay for the social safety net, you pay for the profits made by the capitalist class. Assuming you work that is.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by hotel1
This is the result of fifty years of the lunatic left and cultural Marxism that has polluted every publicly funded institution. The reprehensible behaviour of the lazy and feckless is rewarded while those that do the work that funds these backward ideologies are penalised and vilified as various ists for daring to speak out against it.

edit on 23-5-2013 by hotel1 because: (no reason given)

Rubbish, the welfare system is due to liberals, not Marxists. Liberalism is not socialism.

"Liberalism is not socialism and it never will be" - Winston Churchill, Liberal Party candidate for Dundee, 1908.

The social safety net was started by the middle, and upper middle classes, to help appease the working class, and keep them from revolting.

The social safety net does more for the upper classes, than it does for the poor. Without it there would be property crime like never seen before anywhere. What about the expense of dealing with the health problems that would spread? All those homeless people everywhere? Do you really think not having welfare would be better? Just so you save a couple of dollars from your pay check, a pay check that doesn't pay you the full fruits of your labour, even before the government takes it's cut? You not only pay for the social safety net, you pay for the profits made by the capitalist class. Assuming you work that is.

The point I made was about what the welfare system in the UK has become and why that is, not about how and why it began. The two are separate issues.

Originally posted by hotel1

The point I made was about what the welfare system in the UK has become and why that is, not about how and why it began. The two are separate issues.

But your point is wrong. They are not separate issues.

Blaming Marxism for something that liberals did or do, is wrong.

Marxism has nothing to do with the welfare state, that is the result of capitalism and liberals. Nowhere did Marx demand a welfare state. He demanded an end to capitalism, the system that requires a welfare state. Socialism doesn't require a welfare state at all because it's workers common ownership of the means of production. Capitalism requires welfare because of the artificial scarcity of resources capitalism requires.

The two concepts are usually seen in complete opposition in our political discourse. The more capitalism and wealth, the familiar argument goes, the better able we are to do without a safety net for the poor, elderly, sick and young. And that’s true so far as it goes. What it doesn’t get at is that the forces that free market capitalism unleashes are precisely the forces that undermine traditional forms of community and family that once served as a traditional safety net, free from government control. In the West, it happened slowly – with the welfare state emerging in 19th century Germany and spreading elsewhere, as individuals uprooted themselves from their home towns and forged new careers, lives and families in the big cities, with all the broken homes, deserted villages, and bewildered families they left behind....

How Capitalism Creates The Welfare State

Socialism was a working class economic movement for worker ownership, liberalism was a movement for worker compromise. Welfare is not required under socialism, because the workers receive the full fruits of their labour, and there is no economic monopoly by a minority class. There is no class under socialism, everyone works and shares the fruits of their labour. There are different ideas of how socialism should be implemented, and organised, but the thing they all have in common is the workers own and control the means of production.

Welfare is class compromise, providing benefits to the working class within the capitalist economy, the mode of production remains capitalist. That is not socialism.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by hotel1

The point I made was about what the welfare system in the UK has become and why that is, not about how and why it began. The two are separate issues.

But your point is wrong. They are not separate issues.

Blaming Marxism for something that liberals did or do, is wrong.

Marxism has nothing to do with the welfare state, that is the result of capitalism and liberals. Nowhere did Marx demand a welfare state. He demanded an end to capitalism, the system that requires a welfare state. Socialism doesn't require a welfare state at all because it's workers common ownership of the means of production. Capitalism requires welfare because of the artificial scarcity of resources capitalism requires.

The two concepts are usually seen in complete opposition in our political discourse. The more capitalism and wealth, the familiar argument goes, the better able we are to do without a safety net for the poor, elderly, sick and young. And that’s true so far as it goes. What it doesn’t get at is that the forces that free market capitalism unleashes are precisely the forces that undermine traditional forms of community and family that once served as a traditional safety net, free from government control. In the West, it happened slowly – with the welfare state emerging in 19th century Germany and spreading elsewhere, as individuals uprooted themselves from their home towns and forged new careers, lives and families in the big cities, with all the broken homes, deserted villages, and bewildered families they left behind....

How Capitalism Creates The Welfare State

Socialism was a working class economic movement for worker ownership, liberalism was a movement for worker compromise. Welfare is not required under socialism, because the workers receive the full fruits of their labour, and there is no economic monopoly by a minority class. There is no class under socialism, everyone works and shares the fruits of their labour. There are different ideas of how socialism should be implemented, and organised, but the thing they all have in common is the workers own and control the means of production.

Welfare is class compromise, providing benefits to the working class within the capitalist economy, the mode of production remains capitalist. That is not socialism.

I take your point, but it is possible to be a Culturally Marxist Society without having a ideologically Marxist political leadership.

Originally posted by hotel1
I take your point, but it is possible to be a Culturally Marxist Society without having a ideologically Marxist political leadership.

You are going to have to explain "cultural Marxism".

Modern politics have nothing to do with Marxism. If it did things would be far better than they are mate.

Words like Marxism these days are used for nothing more than invoking an emotional response based on social conditioning. Marx was demonised in order to demonise socialism. The establishment fear socialism, because they need capitalism in order to maintain their authority. Without the mass economic disparity capitalism creates they have no power.

The establishment didn't demonise socialism to protect you, they did it to protect themselves. They couldn't care any less for you and me.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by hotel1
I take your point, but it is possible to be a Culturally Marxist Society without having a ideologically Marxist political leadership.

You are going to have to explain "cultural Marxism".

Modern politics have nothing to do with Marxism. If it did things would be far better than they are mate.

Words like Marxism these days are used for nothing more than invoking an emotional response based on social conditioning. Marx was demonised in order to demonise socialism. The establishment fear socialism, because they need capitalism in order to maintain their authority. Without the mass economic disparity capitalism creates they have no power.

The establishment didn't demonise socialism to protect you, they did it to protect themselves. They couldn't care any less for you and me.

en.wikipedia.org...

Slightly long winded but a better explanation than I could supply. We may be in danger of going off topic but see if you think the link adds to the discussion.

Kind regards