Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why doesn't Labour use money from people on benefits to fund the armed forces? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comp_Genius)
    Me too.
    Obviously I am not for a harsh state where it leaves people to die on the streets. But read my above post: I am all for benefits as long as they are repaid. I don't believe in free money. Special needs childrens should be able to claim (or their parents) as much as they need in the form of a government loan. I think everyone should have a responsibility, it isn't the state's, but the state should make it easier to carry such responsibliities on one's shoulders...
    That's fair enough and I see your point in context of the big picture, even agree with it on most parts. But how on earth do you propose a severely disabled child pays back a loan?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because the poor people in underprivileged environments need chances to you know!!!

    How cn u all be so self centered and meen? Their's peoples in the UK living in absolute povverty, who can't even afford new cloves or to enjoy themmselves like everybody else, and then there is rich people getting paid billions of pounds a year and have been wasting it on useless things like buying ireland's and space travel.

    Its so unfair! That little amount of dole money changes peoples lives and lets them have a little bit of luxury instead of having absolutely nothing I know a family down the road like who all claim dole money and if they didn't have that money what the hell would happen to them?!! Are you trying to say that they should all starve and die? The mum has 9 kids and is only 21, how an earth would she be able to bring them up and be able to afford a car without this money?

    Then you want to give this money to murderers in Iran and Egypt and places where we are fighting and killing millions of people every day. That's so selfish and cruel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by francesca_20)
    That's fair enough and I see your point in context of the big picture, even agree with it on most parts. But how on earth do you propose a severely disabled child pays back a loan?!
    Errr... I'm not 100% sure about this, but they could work when they're older. I might need to verify my sources though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yet the government chose to hunt down people in the armed forces, when the are only claiming a few millions compared to 1.5 billions in housing benefits alone!

    single mothers - they should have had better judgment. No one forced them to have sex. If you can't afford to pay for your baby, don't have one! what makes single mothers more special than a couple with a child? Sometimes both the husband and wife work, yet they still manage!

    Disabilities - fine.

    Incapable of work - fine, if they are on their own. But if they have family, their family, not the state, should support them.

    And some aren't incapable...
    Would you so easily judge a woman who was raped and tell her because she is a single mother she should not be aloud benefits? There are single mothers that abuse the system, who get pregnant just to claim benefits and a flat however, I don't feel we should deny single mothers help if their reason is genuine. Although I may have read a bit too much into your post :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jeff Hunter)
    Errr... I'm not 100% sure about this, but they could work when they're older. I might need to verify my sources though.
    So they just get better once they reach working age? I'm talking severely , as in brain damaged...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by francesca_20)
    That's fair enough and I see your point in context of the big picture, even agree with it on most parts. But how on earth do you propose a severely disabled child pays back a loan?!
    I meant the parent . I agree, it isn't particularly fair on the parent to have to pay for it, but it's even more unfair to expect the state to bear the burdern. Maybe I'm just biased against the system because a minority systematically abuse it; but I still disagree with the principle of free money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comp_Genius)
    I meant the parent . I agree, it isn't particularly fair on the parent to have to pay for it, but it's even more unfair to expect the state to bear the burdern. Maybe I'm just biased against the system because a minority systematically abuse it; but I still disagree with the principle of free money.
    Unfortunately with that, surely the parents will be more prone just to give their child up into the care of the state anyway? Be put into a care home etc.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jeff Hunter)
    Because the poor people in underprivileged environments need chances to you know!!!

    How cn u all be so self centered and meen? Their's peoples in the UK living in absolute povverty, who can't even afford new cloves or to enjoy themmselves like everybody else, and then there is rich people getting paid billions of pounds a year and have been wasting it on useless things like buying ireland's and space travel.

    Its so unfair! That little amount of dole money changes peoples lives and lets them have a little bit of luxury instead of having absolutely nothing I know a family down the road like who all claim dole money and if they didn't have that money what the hell would happen to them?!! Are you trying to say that they should all starve and die? The mum has 9 kids and is only 21, how an earth would she be able to bring them up and be able to afford a car without this money?

    Then you want to give this money to murderers in Iran and Egypt and places where we are fighting and killing millions of people every day. That's so selfish and cruel.
    I agree with you, for some things. I am all for giving anybody including poor people a chance to do well in life. Anyone should be able to ask the government to provide with loans which they need for living, education etc. but they should be repaid!

    A lot of rich people have worked for their money. Even for those who haven't, they daddies did... so I guess it's still their money.

    I agree with selfishness. I am guilty of it, and so is everybody on the planet.

    mum has 9 kids and is only 21. Come on - why is she having 9 kids when she's 21!??? It was her choice, unless she was repeatedly raped 9 times, then yes, I am all for giving all the benefits she needs.

    The state has a responsibility, but individuals do too.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yesioo)
    Would you so easily judge a woman who was raped and tell her because she is a single mother she should not be aloud benefits? There are single mothers that abuse the system, who get pregnant just to claim benefits and a flat however, I don't feel we should deny single mothers help if their reason is genuine. Although I may have read a bit too much into your post :rolleyes:
    But how many of the single mothers are raped? Yes, I agree, if it's something horrible like rape, then the state should provide all the support (inc. grants etc.) they need. But I have no sympathy for people who at the ages of 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 have 2 kids each year!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by francesca_20)
    Unfortunately with that, surely the parents will be more prone just to give their child up into the care of the state anyway? Be put into a care home etc.
    Catch 22... . What about making it illegal to not care for the child? But once they reach 18 it's still going to be the state picking up the pieces ...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comp_Genius)
    I agree with you, for some things. I am all for giving anybody including poor people a chance to do well in life. Anyone should be able to ask the government to provide with loans which they need for living, education etc. but they should be repaid!

    A lot of rich people have worked for their money. Even for those who haven't, they daddies did... so I guess it's still their money.

    I agree with selfishness. I am guilty of it, and so is everybody on the planet.

    mum has 9 kids and is only 21. Come on - why is she having 9 kids when she's 21!??? It was her choice, unless she was repeatedly raped 9 times, then yes, I am all for giving all the benefits she needs.

    The state has a responsibility, but individuals do too.
    I know!!!! I'm so glad someone agress with me, you're so totally right!!!

    But I disagree about individuals having responsibiility! My sociology teacher told me we're all ruled by determinism and that it's not our faults if we do something bad! So we should forgive all the wrongdoers and all try and help one another and make a big happy country where we can all have 21 kids by the age of nine
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jeff Hunter)
    I know!!!! I'm so glad someone agress with me, you're so totally right!!!

    But I disagree about individuals having responsibiility! My sociology teacher told me we're all ruled by determinism and that it's not our faults if we do something bad! So we should forgive all the wrongdoers and all try and help one another and make a big happy country where we can all have 21 kids by the age of nine
    I can't work out whether you were being sarcastic in your previous post..!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comp_Genius)
    Catch 22... . What about making it illegal to not care for the child? But once they reach 18 it's still going to be the state picking up the pieces ...

    Definitely agree with the Catch 22.. Basically, benefits are given to the child or carer so that the state doesn't have to pay for care it would be given in an NHS special care home, which would be much more. So it's either one or the other.

    But making it illegal to not care for your child is opening up a whole can of worms!! What if the parent is abusive? Neglecting? Not all children are wanted. And not all disabled children stop needing intensive care at 18.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    That's rich, coming from a person who is incapable of stringing a credible political argument together.
    Why are you so rude to everyone?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by francesca_20)
    Definitely agree with the Catch 22.. Basically, benefits are given to the child or carer so that the state doesn't have to pay for care it would be given in an NHS special care home, which would be much more. So it's either one or the other.

    But making it illegal to not care for your child is opening up a whole can of worms!! What if the parent is abusive? Neglecting? Not all children are wanted. And not all disabled children stop needing intensive care at 18.
    Force parents to contribute to the costs?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    benefits are complete bullcrap, soo much money is wasted there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It shouldn't be an "either/or" question.

    Having anyone on long term benefits is no good for them, no good for the Government and no good for the tax payer. The problem as far as media portrayal is, is that the focus is on the latter two - therefore pressure on policy is on who can hit people the most hardest. But does it work?

    Do threats work with you? What are the things that make you want to get out of bed in the morning?

    There are a million-and-one different reasons why people are on benefits. I'd want to look at identifying WHY people are on benefits and for such a long time. Is it things like:
    - Health/disability
    - Lack of skills/training
    - Lack of education
    - Lack of jobs that match what skills they have
    - Lack of suitable housing near to where the jobs are
    - Family/child care commitments
    - Not wanting to move away from their home town?
    - Lack of information about where jobs/training opportunities are
    - Criminal records/poor employment history
    - Motivation shot to pieces because of redundancy

    I'd want to look at all of the above first, and put in place policies and actions to deal with all of the above, and THEN start looking at those who can't be bothered.

    It's a damn lot more complicated than saying "Ooh, shall we cut the benefits bill and give the army more money while conscripting all those layabouts doing nothing?"

    The army isn't for woosies. Many people who apply for it don't get in. If we moved to a conscription model (which goes against the whole ethos of the army - remembering we have only ever had conscription in the UK in 1916-18 and 1939-eary 1960s) it may well REDUCE the operational capabilities of the armed forces as all the capable people would end up as NCOs trying to get the rest of them into shape. The question the is what do you do with them? One of the big complaints about the conscription model from our continental European cousins is that young men spend 6 months or so bumming around doing nothing because the state doesn't have the resources to train them up to a level where they can carry out useful military activities - certainly not peacekeeping. Also, many countries (including here) have very strict rules about the military getting involved in policing activities.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    People are on benefits for all sorts of reasons. Why punish them? Even those who are lazy and say that they don't want to work. There is always some valid reason for not working. Laziness is not an excuse; it is a reason. Just ask Bertrand Russell!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikdc5)
    Why are you so rude to everyone?
    I feed on their tears.

    Nom, nom, nom!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comp_Genius)
    I don't read the daily mail but:
    1) young single parents - it's their decision to have children early in life. They should have planned their live better. Their family should be supporting them, not the state. Why should my tax go to someone who think they can have babies when they're 14 and then claim benefits for the next 10 years?

    2) Pension. When I say benefits, I mean disability or housing, or unemployment. Pension shouldn't really be classed as benefits (even if they are).

    1) Of course you're right.. of course it's irresponsible to have children at an age where you can't support them. But in not all cases are the families of said young parents willing to support them. And the children of teenage parents aren't responsible for the conditions under which they were born. Even if their parents deserve nothing at all (something which I don't believe) then their children deserve somewhere to live and enough to get by on, and to have a parent/guardian at home to look after them. That's not to say I'm entirely in favour of all teenage parents being given loads of money by the gov. - I don't really know enough about it. But I don't think it's black and white, and I don't share this odd delusion which many people (not necessarily you) have that people on benefits get loads and loads of money and live a life of luxury - it's just not true they get a pittance a week.

    2) Fair enough, But that means graphs displaying benefit spending (I know it wasn't you but all the same) aren't really valid if that's what you're arguing about.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.