[Martyn*]

...in the world.'

Says Tory toff Andrew Mitchell.

What?! The budget is supposed to be for the country. What has 'the world' got to do with it?

We are too busy sorting out the world, when we should be concentrating all our resources into getting people IN THIS COUNTRY into jobs and out of poverty.

But what do we expect of these traitors...(according to Wiki: ) founder of Project Umubano, a Conservative Party social action project in Rwanda and Sierra Leone in central and west Africa, launched in 2007.

Too busy saving the world whilst our country desparately needs attention.

[Bey Taco]

I agree. Britain should always be our top priority, especially at a time like this.

[Sdiff]

Do people in Britain who produce nothing (people on welfare who have never worked/rarely worked) deserve so much more than people in Africa who produce nothing? The aforementioned in Africa have very little opportunity while those in Britains have loads. Yet somehow the non-producers in Britain feel they are entitled to a nice comfortable life at the expense of the taxpayer? Am I the only one who finds this hypocritical?

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Do people in Britain who produce nothing (people on welfare who have never worked/rarely worked) deserve so much more than people in Africa who produce nothing? The aforementioned in Africa have very little opportunity while those in Britains have loads. Yet somehow the non-producers in Britain feel they are entitled to a nice comfortable life at the expense of the taxpayer? Am I the only one who finds this hypocritical?

The people of Africa do not elect these politicians. The reason why these politicians - and Labour have done the same- seem to be more interested in helping third world countries before the country that they live in, is because of foreign policy.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by Martyn*)
The people of Africa do not elect these politicians. The reason why these politicians - and Labour have done the same- seem to be more interested in helping third world countries before the country that they live in, is because of foreign policy.

Well firstly it's completely idiotic of you to suggest they are helping third world countries before this one. Foreign aid makes up a small fraction of our budget.

And you didn't answer my question. Welfare is charity is it not? Why are people in Britain who have HEAPS of opportunity entitled to a flat screen TV, a house, free education and healthcare etc., all at the expense of the tax payer, yet according to you people in the third world are entitled to absolutely nothing?
Could it be that you are just greedy?

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Well firstly it's completely idiotic of you to suggest they are helping third world countries before this one. Foreign aid makes up a small fraction of our budget.

And you didn't answer my question. Welfare is charity is it not? Why are people in Britain who have HEAPS of opportunity entitled to a flat screen TV, a house, free education and healthcare etc., all at the expense of the tax payer, yet according to you people in the third world are entitled to absolutely nothing?
Could it be that you are just greedy?

It is clear that the budget includes helping other countries. Excepting those who don't pay tax because they are out of work, the budget should go to benefit the people who pay taxes in this country. At a time when we are in recession, we should be delegating all the resources into helping struggling families, and helping people - both young and old - into sustainable employment. We shouldn't even be considering Africa or Sierra Leone at a time like this. Welfare may well be charity...but it is our charity. It supports us.

As for the 'we have everything and they don't' argument, I cannot argue with that, but at this moment in time we have to put our priorities in order, and that means pooling all resources to get the country back on track.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by Martyn*)
It is clear that the budget includes helping other countries. Excepting those who don't pay tax because they are out of work, the budget should go to benefit the people who pay taxes in this country. At a time when we are in recession, we should be delegating all the resources into helping struggling families, and helping people - both young and old - into sustainable employment. We shouldn't even be considering Africa or Sierra Leone at a time like this.

The budget should benefit those who pay taxes in his country? So in other words, a tax cut? I would be happy with that.

You're being extremely vague. What do you mean "helping people into employment"? You realise the government does not create productive jobs right?

Are you saying that we should let more people in Africa starve so that people in this country who don't work can have an extra foreign holiday or sky sports?

Poverty is NOT a problem in the UK. Our welfare system is far too generous for that. And before you start, "Relative" poverty is NOT poverty.

Btw, you realise Sierre Leone is in Africa right?

[Bey Taco]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Well firstly it's completely idiotic of you to suggest they are helping third world countries before this one. Foreign aid makes up a small fraction of our budget.

And you didn't answer my question. Welfare is charity is it not? Why are people in Britain who have HEAPS of opportunity entitled to a flat screen TV, a house, free education and healthcare etc., all at the expense of the tax payer, yet according to you people in the third world are entitled to absolutely nothing?
Could it be that you are just greedy?

I don't understand humans like yourself. You say all of this and yet still perfectly happy to indulge yourself in things that you say you should not be entitled to. Could it be that you are ignorant?

[Sdiff]

(Original post by Martyn*)
It is clear that the budget includes helping other countries. Excepting those who don't pay tax because they are out of work, the budget should go to benefit the people who pay taxes in this country. At a time when we are in recession, we should be delegating all the resources into helping struggling families, and helping people - both young and old - into sustainable employment. We shouldn't even be considering Africa or Sierra Leone at a time like this. Welfare may well be charity...but it is our charity. It supports us.

As for the 'we have everything and they don't' argument, I cannot argue with that, but at this moment in time we have to put our priorities in order, and that means pooling all resources to get the country back on track.

I agree that we need to get this country on track. But that will be done by allowing the private sector to thrive, NOT by funnelling more money into welfare or the public sector.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by Bey Taco)


I don't understand humans like yourself. You say all of this and yet still perfectly happy to indulge yourself in things that you say you should not be entitled to. Could it be that you are ignorant?

You have misread my post. I am not saying I am not entitled to anything. I believe that if you work and earn a living for yourself, you are entitled to the wealth you have earned.

But from what I can tell, the OP is saying that people in Britain who do **** all are somehow entitled to a big charity/welfare check while people in Africa deserve nothing.

[Bey Taco]

(Original post by Sdiff)
You have misread my post. I am not saying I am not entitled to anything. I believe that if you work and earn a living for yourself, you are entitled to the wealth you have earned.

But from what I can tell, the OP is saying that people in Britain who do **** all are somehow entitled to a big charity/welfare check while people in Africa deserve nothing.

We can only reach out to a number of people at a time. The reason some of those benefits are there is to help the less fortunate and able, I understand that it is missused at times but some of these cases cannot be helped, people will be people.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by Bey Taco)
We can only reach out to a number of people at a time. The reason some of those benefits are there is to help the less fortunate and able, I understand that it is missused at times but some of these cases cannot be helped, people will be people.

So let me get this straight.

The government needs to take money from people who are serving, producing and innovating to create a product that improves peoples lives.

It needs to take this money and give it to people who do absolutely nothing so they can have alcohol, cigarettes, a flatscreen TV, sky sports, medicine etc., despite he fact that these people had huge opportunities afforded to them.

Yet it should not give any money to people who were never afforded such opportunities and are starving.

Is that correct?

And they say us Tories are greedy.

[Bey Taco]

(Original post by Sdiff)
So let me get this straight.

The government needs to take money from people who are serving, producing and innovating to create a product that improves peoples lives.

It needs to take this money and give it to people who do absolutely nothing so they can have alcohol, cigarettes, a flatscreen TV, sky sports, medicine etc., despite he fact that these people had huge opportunities afforded to them.

Yet it should not give any money to people who were never afforded such opportunities and are starving.

Is that correct?

And they say us Tories are greedy.

If you are talking about the chav down my street, she has a child who needs looking after, the government doesnt give her money because she cant be asked to work but because they feel the child deserves a normal childhood. They cannot control how this money is used but they can monitor that the child is fine.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by Bey Taco)
If you are talking about the chav down my street, she has a child who needs looking after, the government doesnt give her money because she cant be asked to work but because they feel the child deserves a normal childhood. They cannot control how this money is used but they can monitor that the child is fine.

You did not answer my question.

Is the "chav" entitled to a comfortable standard of living off the taxpayers' back, in your opinion?

Is her child entitled to a comfortable standard of living off the taxpayers' back, in your opinion?

Is a similar child or adult in Africa entitled to a comfortable standard of living off the taxpayers' back IYO? What about a basic standard of living?

If you answered yes to either 1 or 2 but not 3, what did those people do to deserve the taxpayers' forcefully taken money more than the child/adult in Africa?

[internet tough guy]

how much do we donate per year anyway?

[Bey Taco]

(Original post by Sdiff)
You did not answer my question.

Is the "chav" entitled to a comfortable standard of living off the taxpayers' back, in your opinion?

Is her child entitled to a comfortable standard of living off the taxpayers' back, in your opinion?

Is a similar child or adult in Africa entitled to a comfortable standard of living off the taxpayers' back IYO? What about a basic standard of living?

If you answered yes to either 1 or 2 but not 3, what did those people do to deserve the taxpayers' forcefully taken money more than the child/adult in Africa?

Yes, the child is entitled to a comfortable standard of living because it is not his/her fault. Not the chav ofcourse.

We cannot afford to provide a comfortable standard of living for everyone who needs it in the world. We do donate each year and in order for us to continue donating we need britain (as a whole) to do well because if we begin to have extreme rich and poor areas our economy will dwindle.

[Sdiff]

(Original post by Bey Taco)
Yes, the child is entitled to a comfortable standard of living because it is not his/her fault. Not the chav ofcourse.

We cannot afford to provide a comfortable standard of living for everyone who needs it in the world. We do donate each year and in order for us to continue donating we need britain (as a whole) to do well because if we begin to have extreme rich and poor areas our economy will dwindle.

Using your logic from the first paragraph, the children in Africa are entitled to a comfortable standard of living because whatever "it" is, "it" is not their fault.

But then we come to the second point. Now you're saying it's for economic reasons that we provide welfare, and not welfare/charitable reasons.

Putting charity/welfare aside, surely simply scrapping the welfare budget, using it to close the deficit, cut income taxes and pay extra police for a while would benefit the economy more?


You seem to be contradicting yourself. Do you support taxation for welfare because (I) it is sound economically in your opinion, or (ii) it is morally sound in your opinion and you think the government should force us to be charitable?

If (ii), then surely you believe the government should get its priorities straight because feeding a starving person is more charitable than buying somebody alcohol or cigarettes or indeed giving them any form of comfortable standard of living?

[cl_steele]

leaving aside the fact the amount we donate is but a small drop of water in a very large ocean compared to other spending i do agree we should be looking out for numero uno in these times.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Sdiff)
I agree that we need to get this country on track. But that will be done by allowing the private sector to thrive, NOT by funnelling more money into welfare or the public sector.

The increase in welfare bills is as a reaction to the failures of the Capitalist system; if we reduced the working week then maybe there would be more jobs; keep production in-toe, have better organisation, and the wages would not have to come down. Instead, people are either over-worked (and under-paid in some cases) or not working at all. Besides, people are not necessarily on the dole because they choose to be. When there is no work, one can you do?

[ras90]

(Original post by Martyn*)
The increase in welfare bills is as a reaction to the failures of the Capitalist system; if we reduced the working week then maybe there would be more jobs; keep production in-toe, have better organisation, and the wages would not have to come down. Instead, people are either over-worked (and under-paid in some cases) or not working at all. Besides, people are not necessarily on the dole because they choose to be. When there is no work, one can you do?

Ofcourse wages would fall if you reduce the working week.