Fixing Benefits Britain

Yet contraception is free,sex ed is compulsory, and abortions are free and legal ergo there is no excuse besides idiocy for accidentally having a kid.

A good few dozen - far too many for my likings.

Remove alcohol and drug consumption in the UK is insanely high, especially among the lower classes. in London a metric ****ton of people who let the govt pay for their rent somehow manage to find a way to pay for facefulls of coke.

In parts of the South. Go 40 mins out from Birmingham or Manchester and rent is almost nonexistent. Though I do think the govt should have a relocation scheme and move people out of dead areas.

I wasn't - I quoted your quote of someone else.

But that is beside the point really - I don't think they all live comfortably. Rightly so. Try working and, perhaps, you may live more comfortably!

Before I deal with the hypocrisy in your response, I will first deal with the fact related to your misinterpretation of my response. I was merely suggesting that perhaps she could try a little harder to gain employment. If you actually took the time to bother to look at her previous response, you would miraculously discern that she dislikes claiming benefits. Therefore, I suggested that perhaps she should put herself out and try and get a job - she could potentially feel so much better for having a job, less isolated and more integrated into the community. THIS is what will allow people with mental health disorders to be better integrated into society and this will result in less discrimination against them and is working towards the result I want to achieve of as close as possible to full employment. I would call this 'humanity' (using the ambiguous term you decided to use), wouldn't you? The reason mental health services are in such a state is because there is a lack of incentive for integration.

Referring to people such as myself who want as many people to take up work, if not only for their own personal development, as a 'pox' on this country is rather incorrect and not inoffensive by any means, is it? The sheer hypocrisy in your response is frankly unbelievable. I will not do the same, however, and will 'cheer up immensely' (to quote Thatcher) as you clearly have not a single political argument, or even overall rhetoric, left.

I think the shame is on you for misinterpreting the nature of a comment and starting to make personal remarks based on very little evidence or knowledge of the subject. Disability may be closer to me than you may think - one of my relatives (a very close one at that) is severely disabled, and we have always pushed him to gain employment and go to a mainstream school when he was younger. Let me tell you, this has had an enormously positive impact on him and his personal development, to live with other members of the community.

I will not assume whether you have this experience as I happen to have, but, either way, I think you should perhaps think a little more deeply before you give me such an unsupported, absurd response to suggesting that people who are mentally ill, and physically ill to the greatest extent possible, should have a job, be it one in charity or mainstream, paid employment. It is, in my experience, further debilitating psychologically if this is not the case.

You are fallaciously attempting to compare two entirely different things - in the private (and public) sector, people offer a service or good valuable to that market and they are rightly remunerated for it because they offer a competitive service.

You are being paid just for existing!

Ok, so I need MORE stigma. I already know there are lots of people that would consider me a 'scrounger' and say that my illnesses aren't real. Christ I beat myself up enough about claiming benefits but when I only leave the house to buy food and spend all day in bed surrounded by a growing pile of rubbish, I don't have a choice.

Perhaps if you tried putting yourself out, and even merely attempting to gain employment, you wouldn't feel this way.

Oh my God, you're so right, a job would remove all my problems.

Seriously, **** right off.

No Sir, no one has misinterpreted your posts and for you to suggest is an attempt to bend the truth which if I may so is rather spineless and cowardly of you. What you did is continue to badger her even after she showed her distress which is very clear in this exchange:











There is NOTHING altruistic in that exchange and even if their was you are NOT a medical professional and you know NOTHING of her needs,to suggest that a disabled person just needs to try harder to get some employment is as naive as it is banal and irrelevant since you know nothing about her. So you are now lying and trying to put yourself in a better light by claiming I misunderstood? As I said before utterly cowardly and spineless, have the conviction to stand by what you wrote, people aren;t stupid it's right there in black and white.

You come across as someone who has had a privileged life and a strong education that lets you pick up jobs like a dog picks up fleas.

Your ignorance and lack of human compassion is breath taking. What you need is some real life experience and I hope that one day you have a life shattering, profound financial or health crisis that brings you to your knees and leaves YOU at the mercy of our benefits system, then maybe you would understand something of what it is you are trying to speak about. Who knows what will be left of the system by then but until such a thing happens you are frankly embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.

On the subject of it, someone sounds a little jealous of (and evidently requires) a good education, don't you think? You're certainly sore about something - that if nothing else.

I would hardly compare 'picking up a job' to 'picking up fleas' - a job gives someone financial security and allows them a route out of poverty. The audacity you have to begin berating me without even forming a constructive argument when I was suggesting how a job could improve someone's quality of life is quite shocking.

The person in question is physically able to go into employment, so why shouldn't she? I stand by the comments I made as they speak the truth. The truth that so many leftists are afraid to speak about. Seeing as you attempted to take some of my comments out of context, the flaw in her argument that I pointed out was that she is comparing the welfare state to the private sector. A service or good is offered in demand by a certain market in the private sector and is remunerated. The welfare state pays people for existing - this is true, is it not?

The 'defensive' comment is also accurate - her tone on the comment telling me to 'f*** right off' seemed somewhat defensive, so I decided to try and make the reply a little more lighthearted, which obviously didn't work as well as I had surmised.

Anyway, the point still stands that everyone is better off in employment in some form. Not least because it improves their quality of life, but reduces the burden on the taxpayer.

On the subject of it, someone sounds a little jealous of (and evidently requires) a good education, don't you think?

a job gives someone financial security

and allows them a route out of poverty.

The person in question is physically able to go into employment, so why shouldn't she?

Anyway, the point still stands that everyone is better off in employment in some form. Not least because it improves their quality of life, but reduces the burden on the taxpayer.

Really? The jelly belly card? Come on, we're not 10 years old.



No it does not. It gives one money for the duration of the job. If you are suddenly made redundant, it wasn't that secure was it?



This assumes that the pay is high enough compared to the outgoings of the individual.

Your picture that you paint of employment is indeed a rosy one, and it is how it should be. But unfortunately it's not like that. There is not necessarily financial security and a route out of poverty to be had with employment. It's a case-by-case thing. To suggest otherwise is rather idealistic IMHO.



Well for a start they could be mentally incapacitated. People aren't machines. In fact I suspect mental incapacitation is a more common factor than physical incapacitation, but that would only be a guess.



Again, an idealistic view of employment. Go down the factory and pack biscuits in groups of ten for 9 hours a day then after six months tell me that's improving your quality of life. Or work in an office an get psychologically bullied by your boss for a year, break down and tell us your life has improved.

Now, in essence I agree with your enthusiasm and even your ideals, but I'm arguing that the reality is a long way from that, and that's what we should be addressing if we want to get people off benefits.

On the subject of it, someone sounds a little jealous of (and evidently requires) a good education, don't you think? You're certainly sore about something - that if nothing else.

I would hardly compare 'picking up a job' to 'picking up fleas' - a job gives someone financial security and allows them a route out of poverty. The audacity you have to begin berating me without even forming a constructive argument when I was suggesting how a job could improve someone's quality of life is quite shocking.

The person in question is physically able to go into employment, so why shouldn't she? I stand by the comments I made as they speak the truth. The truth that so many leftists are afraid to speak about. Seeing as you attempted to take some of my comments out of context, the flaw in her argument that I pointed out was that she is comparing the welfare state to the private sector. A service or good is offered in demand by a certain market in the private sector and is remunerated. The welfare state pays people for existing - this is true, is it not?

The 'defensive' comment is also accurate - her tone on the comment telling me to 'f*** right off' seemed somewhat defensive, so I decided to try and make the reply a little more lighthearted, which obviously didn't work as well as I had surmised.

Anyway, the point still stands that everyone is better off in employment in some form. Not least because it improves their quality of life, but reduces the burden on the taxpayer.

You know nothing about mental illness, do you? I've got quite severe OCD and I've got a learning disability. Both of which make getting a job impossible. How can you expect someone to get a job if they're so mentally ill that things like eating, getting dressed, getting up, etc are impossible?

Employment doesn't always improve someone's quality of life. Unless you can find me a job where I don't have to interact with anyone, I can work when I can, there will be minimal noise, etc? I had to leave my last volunteering role because of the noise and because I was finding that tasks you lot take for granted were becoming impossible.

Contraception is not a 100% guarantee. Sex education is does not make contraception 100% infallible. And abortions should not be used as a birth control method. Abortions are an entirely different subject.

''There's no excuse'' is not realistic. It's idealistic. The fact simply remains that a lot of women become accidentally pregnant and then decide that actually they would quite like to have a kid, usually because of the bond they develop with the kid while they are pregnant with it. At least, this is what I understand from the women in my life.

To brand all women that accidentally get pregnant and decide to have the child as ''idiots'' is ignorant.

The point I was making was - even if you knew a few hundred, it would still not be a scientific or logical representation of the landscape. There are millions of people on benefits. And you think you can represent them by citing the situations of a few dozen? Even if you knew a few hundred, it would still only be a tiny fraction of a percentage of the whole story.

Well, people have always done, and will always do, drugs. It's a human indulgence, always has been, always will be.

How do you know how many people do coke in London? And how do you know how many of them are on benefits? Do you have a job at some kind of strange market research company or something?

Well if parts of the South is where people are from, then it's parts of the South that we're talking about. Also, what's the work like and what's the pay like in Birmingham and Manchester? Because if it's low, then that rather kills the point of people relocating there.

Or are you suggesting that some poor sod on benefits with no real prospects apart from sky TV and the odd gram of ''coke'' which is 99% baby laxative and 1% coke should be shunted off to a strange city away from their families, friends, and support networks? I can't imagine that'll do much to encourage them back to, or equip them for, work. Probably the opposite, as they sink into depression and compound their situation.

http://www.newser.com/story/210505/desperate-to-read-boy-asks-mailman-for-junk-mail.html

Look at this! people in bad circumstances can take the imitative and not be a victim! Its not societies place to incentivise individuals to not turn into slabs of lard , it should just not support them in doing so. They're not going to die, they will lose weight and then be eligible for higher benefits again in a worst case scenario!




So Ive been brainwashed? Of course I have! EVERYONE has been influenced by forces beyond their control- as you didnt invent socialism youre just as susceptible to claims of brainwashing as I am, the only difference is in this country my 'brainwashing' is more dominant than yours!





What on earth are you talking about? If a car randomly blew up the company would get sued to hell and be at a loss.




No, theyre not.




Better than no logic at all. So, in your opinion people that are exercising and eating healthily are being unhealthy?



A lack of contraception, female empowerment and sex education. Arguably in some cases child labour laws functioned as some sort of child benefit in that they earnt their parents money too.



Thats how you deal with your problems, acknowledge them and try to better yourself, not going baaaww i'd be so happy if it wasnt for those bankers!



Well thats just nonsense.

Most tories including myself think that there should be some sort of safety net.

As for most of your general argument that we can be more moral by giving the government more money to hand out:

I believe in people choosing whatever they want to do. I just accept that people will be limited in what they can do if they adhere to Socialist philosophy. Socialists told you to be irresponsible for yourself. Give away what you own etc etc when we are the freest people in society and obtained all our wealth thanks to being a succesful western capitalist nation. Also, these Socialists work together to maintain their position because they understand if they did what they told you to do they would become poor, which is not in their self interest. As an individual, it is beneficial for them to work together. Pool their money. Consult each other. While you work your arse off for a piece of the pie.

Also don't spout your default replies to someone on the right to me. If you don't want property just say so. In fact, I want the Socialists to do what they really want to do. People will then see which side of the class divide they are on. This is why the Socualists don't do it lol. They will reveal their hand.

Don't have anything mate. If you really believe what you say. Don't even give to your family members. Leave them to it.

You're a biased simpleton zombie. You believe Tory rhetoric because of your past experiences. You're trapped. You can't ever be freed. lol you can't be unplugged from the Matrix. You mind is too inured to the way things are. To remove you from the Matrix would be catastrophic for your mind. You'll turn into a coke head and live a life of despair, if you are not doing so already.

You are an individualist therefore your analysis of the world is incomplete.

We are all in this together. To deny that is to deny reality. The disingenuous analysis Tories and co give for the ills of society is deceitful.

You're gonna marry a lady, have kids, get divorced because she doesn't take responsibility for her actions, your kids will resent you for treating them like an enemy, when you die your kids will fight over your assets which will result in a split in the family. Well done

I am glad the Government wants to cut benefits, as I would like to think that people will finally get off their butts and work. But - have benefits been given out for so long that people feel entitled to them and will whinge and complain that they aren't given them?

I'm interested to hear everyone's opinions on benefits. My own beliefs are that: If you're an immigrant you should have been working (legally) in the country for five years before you are entitled to any benefits and you should only be allowed to claim benefits for a maximum of 1 year. After 1 year, you're on your own. I believe that there should also be a cap on UK nationals claiming JSA. I'm sure some will agree and some will disagree.

But one thing we might all agree on, is that the problem we've got in this country is that people see a life on benefits as a real alternative to going to work.

Would love to hear opinions - and please your replies polite, considerate and non-biased guys :-)

Thanks!