Having children shouldn't be a business opportunity
17 Jan 2011, 6:42 pm
marshall wrote:
pandabear wrote:
It used to be that young children in England would be put to work in factories or mines, or as chimney sweeps. Many were also shipped off to Australia. Would you prefer an arrangement like this?
Yes, that is what they want to bring back. They want suffering. They want life to be as short, brutish, and nasty as possible. That builds "character" and makes their dicks grow hard. Beating their wives and children when they misbehave also makes the manly conservative dick grow hard.
This seems pretty irrelevant. Its just a simple goverment mistake, don't reward people for sitting at home, not working, and having kids. The Uk is overcrowded cause of all the foreigners that came here, as we're such a soft touch. If you walked around a rough council estate here, you'd think differently. Seeing some fat single mother of 7, pushing a pram, smoking a ciggarette and turning the air blue, on her way back to sit on her fat lazy butt and drink cider.
_________________
'Ave we had a national f**king stroke!??
17 Jan 2011, 6:42 pm
Macbeth wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
f**k welfare queens and fathers that don't stick around. Disgusting pieces of sh** I tell you.
The only way to stop the nonsense is either enforced sterilization or letting babies die. Which do you prefer?
ruveyn
You do know who pays for the various child protection agencies don't you? Taxpayers. You won't save any money by taking these children into care. Next suggestion?
I'm sure a lot less people would stick their dicks in every p**** or spread their legs to every dick if they knew they couldn't freeload off the government and be bailed out of every irresponsible choice they make.
That may be the case, but its very easy to forget that we also have a contributory national insurance system in this country that (in theory) pays for a safety net of benefits, paid for by working people. There is an EPIC blind spot amongst taxpayers about this. Any one of them could lose their job, could become disabled, in the blink of an eye. They are in for a HUGE shock when they realise how little the benefits system actually pays out, and how much like arbeitsschu scum they will be treated. Treated by a system THEY funded.
How about the productive and busy worker, who has worked every day of his life to support his large family that he has every right to raise, who gets caught up in Government-driven jobcuts? Or suddenly gets run down by a drunk driver and paralysed? Should HIS children be taken away because he will now struggle to pay for them? Because that is what happens when people play fast and loose with such systems.
Quote:
I'm not against absolutely ALL safety nets, but I definitely don't want safety nets to be this easily abused.
So that means I'm obviously not talking about people who get paralyzed by drunk drivers and are therefore unable to work. They are the ones who are truly in need of welfare, not lazy irresponsible f**** who are able to support themselves but are unwilling.
As for those who become unemployed, the safety net should definitely apply to them, but in that case it still has to be made to greatly reduce potential for abuse. Such as if you don't get another job within a year or two, then have fun struggling. Or whatever time span would be reasonable since I pulled 1-2 years out of my ass.
And there is the rub. Our government are busy telling people with every legitimate reason for being unable to work that they are workshy, asocial and undeserving, even those who were disabled fighting in our army . Even the Nazis never stooped to that level. So it does not matter whether someone is deserving or not, they will be treated as undeserving. No safety net can function if the Government cuts holes in it, and changes the definition of deserving by the day. The ones TRULY in need are being treated as callously as the worse of the fraudsters and thieves, possibly more so for they are UNDESERVING of such treatment.
Lines have clearly been drawn in things as sticky as self defense, so I don't see why there can't be a clear definition of what makes you eligible for welfare. There are checks and balances that prevent that definition from being twisted such as "Proportionate use of force" meaning if someone swings at you, you can swing back but you can't stomp that person out after you've sent that person to the floor. "Proportionate use of force" has never been twisted to mean "Shot for shot", it's always meant you can defend yourself but you can't hit the person anymore once that person is either knocked out or running away. Sounds like a clear line drawn to me.
Matter of fact I'm actually seeing pretty liberal policies when it comes to eligibility, so prove that disabled veterans have been thrown off of welfare and provide the reason.
17 Jan 2011, 9:17 pm
AceOfSpades wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
f**k welfare queens and fathers that don't stick around. Disgusting pieces of sh** I tell you.
The only way to stop the nonsense is either enforced sterilization or letting babies die. Which do you prefer?
ruveyn
You do know who pays for the various child protection agencies don't you? Taxpayers. You won't save any money by taking these children into care. Next suggestion?
I'm sure a lot less people would stick their dicks in every p**** or spread their legs to every dick if they knew they couldn't freeload off the government and be bailed out of every irresponsible choice they make.
That may be the case, but its very easy to forget that we also have a contributory national insurance system in this country that (in theory) pays for a safety net of benefits, paid for by working people. There is an EPIC blind spot amongst taxpayers about this. Any one of them could lose their job, could become disabled, in the blink of an eye. They are in for a HUGE shock when they realise how little the benefits system actually pays out, and how much like arbeitsschu scum they will be treated. Treated by a system THEY funded.
How about the productive and busy worker, who has worked every day of his life to support his large family that he has every right to raise, who gets caught up in Government-driven jobcuts? Or suddenly gets run down by a drunk driver and paralysed? Should HIS children be taken away because he will now struggle to pay for them? Because that is what happens when people play fast and loose with such systems.
Quote:
I'm not against absolutely ALL safety nets, but I definitely don't want safety nets to be this easily abused.
So that means I'm obviously not talking about people who get paralyzed by drunk drivers and are therefore unable to work. They are the ones who are truly in need of welfare, not lazy irresponsible f**** who are able to support themselves but are unwilling.
As for those who become unemployed, the safety net should definitely apply to them, but in that case it still has to be made to greatly reduce potential for abuse. Such as if you don't get another job within a year or two, then have fun struggling. Or whatever time span would be reasonable since I pulled 1-2 years out of my ass.
And there is the rub. Our government are busy telling people with every legitimate reason for being unable to work that they are workshy, asocial and undeserving, even those who were disabled fighting in our army . Even the Nazis never stooped to that level. So it does not matter whether someone is deserving or not, they will be treated as undeserving. No safety net can function if the Government cuts holes in it, and changes the definition of deserving by the day. The ones TRULY in need are being treated as callously as the worse of the fraudsters and thieves, possibly more so for they are UNDESERVING of such treatment.
Lines have clearly been drawn in things as sticky as self defense, so I don't see why there can't be a clear definition of what makes you eligible for welfare. There are checks and balances that prevent that definition from being twisted such as "Proportionate use of force" meaning if someone swings at you, you can swing back but you can't stomp that person out after you've sent that person to the floor. "Proportionate use of force" has never been twisted to mean "Shot for shot", it's always meant you can defend yourself but you can't hit the person anymore once that person is either knocked out or running away. Sounds like a clear line drawn to me.
Matter of fact I'm actually seeing pretty liberal policies when it comes to eligibility, so prove that disabled veterans have been thrown off of welfare and provide the reason.
Start by googling ATOS and fraud go from there. Shouldn't be too hard to find hundreds of pages and examples and cases of how the current government are a) demonising the disabled and benefits claimants or b) removing the terminally or incurably ill from benefits.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11704765 Indentured Servitude
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11606492 Fear caused in the disabled.
http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_20100323 Seriously ill and disabled people pushed into seeking work without any help or support
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11813186 Fitness to work tests to be reformed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... t-bullying
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... survey-dwp
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosve ... mmary.html by an ex soldier and doctor
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-12206652 cancer victim refused benefits
http://passingnightmare.co.uk/2011/01/e ... f-welfare/
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles ... it-cut.htm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -22852173/
Would you like to see more?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... local.html
http://www.itv.com/news/soldier-denied-benefit04051/
I could keep posting: there are hundreds of these links, and thats just the ones I saved. Try looking into UnumProvident and THEIR links to ATOS.
Liberal policies on benefits? Only in the darkened room that is your ass, which is where your head must be jammed if you believe that a benefit testing system designed to fail people is liberal, and where barefaced lies are told by our ministers about the benefits bill. Osbourne quoted a 5bn fraud bill. He neglected to point out that most of that 5 is actually DWP error and MISTAKES. Only a billion is actual fraud. Public sector fraud accounts for 30billion against that 1billion. Who exactly should be checked for fraud?
CHecks and balances? The DWP are busy trying to uninvent disabilities so they don't have to pay for them. They have already moved the eligibility criteria so that many disabilities that used to merit benefits now no longer do, and then claimed that 70% of claims were fraudulent. (Neglecting to mention that at least 40% of that 70% appeal and win.)
Don't try and claim that our benefits system is "liberal" or generous. It is not.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
