I thought the right liked charity?

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... f-23182270

So the kids in a developed nation need to rely on charity rather than tax funded meals.

But it's a 'disgrace' for them to receive that charity.

'Decrease the surplus population' indeed, Mr Mogg.

It's possible the UNICEF initiative was rather a message to the British than actual action.
If so, apparently Mr Mogg didn't get the message.

Well, of course the Right likes charity ... as long as it is being provided by someone else.

decrease the surplus population
cull the masses
ethnic cleansing

hmm think we have heard all this before

To be fair the UK is pretty generous with benefits so there is no need for kids to go hungry. It's capped at 20k a year per household outside of London which is more than enough if you also have a job on the go.....which people should if they have kids. If you earn over a certain amount then the already generous cap doesn't even apply anymore.

Benefits were only capped because they regularly exceeded average salary and were getting obscene to the point of causing discontent among a large proportion of the British population. Mogg was right, it was purely political and a suspiciously low amount of money if kids were genuinely starving.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... eport.html

https://www.gov.uk/benefit-cap/benefit-cap-amounts

https://www.gov.uk/benefit-cap/when-youre-not-affected

This sounds less conservative for us Americans. It isn't that they are against charities feeding the hungry children, they are upset that it had come to this and that the country had somehow let this happen where families are too poor to afford food for their kids to keep them full.

Conservatives here in America would want those kids to go hungry and blame it on the parents and say they are too lazy and that they shouldn't have had kids. Yeah, like we should punish the children.

Don't forget that you may become disabled later in life or a divorce can happen or your partner decides to walk out on you and your kids. Oh no, you should have gotten yourself prepared for this and save save save. But guess what, no one would have kids if everyone followed this faulty logic. The human population would have eventually died off and who will take care of the elderly?

If someone had a crystal ball and were able to 100% tell if they were going to work all their kid's childhood or not, I would still not be in favour of the kid going hungry if they couldn't provide for the kid. Whether that alternative is government, charity, other family members, neighbours etc is up for debate. The kid going hungry shouldn't be an option. It's never the kid's fault.

But such crystal balls don't exist.

Only thing different if such things did exist would be that in that case I'd want the kids taken off them because yes, if you think it's unlikely you'll get a job, it is irresponsible to have kids.

Free school meals are provided in school. That means outside of a pandemic, it's easy to monitor unless it's the school holidays. Just provide food then parents have no ability to for eg fund addictions if that's really what's making their family's poor. Or offer food vouchers like the Americans do.

Too severe an alcohol/drug addiction, kids probably are best off not with that particular parent. I've seen that and it's not a nice situation for the kid. It's an in between case with tobacco/weed because in that case the kid's not in immediate danger but it's still not responsible to do that stuff around kids. But I've known a lot more kids on free school dinners who had decent parents who for one reason or another either had low wages or couldn't work or were between jobs.

I like organizations that align to my values.

But the thing is, no one will ever be able to save save save enough for a situation that could happen. Savings runs out.