Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)

    Help people get pissed in a lot of cases, yes.
    Generalisation much?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJolly1902)
    Child you have a lot to learn.
    lol so do you honey
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pocket Calculator)
    but you don't really need a bluewater navy for defence...
    bluewater navy? what do you mean by that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Shaniqua]I'm referring to those people who have been on benefits for years, even pre-recession and spend the money on crap. Ministers have been moaning about lack of funding for the armed forces, so why doesn't Labour start taking people off benefits to fund their wars?

    How exactly do you suggest that the government distinguish between the scroungers and the others?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    Then you're a vile, repulsive human being. Thank goodness not many other people share your juvenile views.

    If you engaged your brain and read my post correctly, I was clearly referring to those who have been on benefits for years and are spending the money on worthless luxuries. You're frankly delusional if you believe benefits money isn't wasted on luxuries, alcohol or even drugs.
    This may surprise you but not everyone who recievces benefits is 'scrounging'. The vast majority spend it on you know, 'worthless luxuries', like food and clothes for their family. Try 'engaging your brain' and check out independant and official statistical data rather than the propaganda and bile spued out by the far-right media.

    If this isn't a troll, you're the most stupid, ignorant, prejudice, spoilt **** I've actually ever encountered.

    Go away now?
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by MrJolly1902)
    The all point is about defense.
    War might start with any nation and with a weak defense you can be caught of....I has happened many times in the past.

    Your thinking is so narrow
    OR, more realistically, you've JUST taken a pretty concentrated injection of heroin.

    Seriously, if you're drawing parallels between Britain foreign policy situation today and pre ww2, you are an idiot.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    I remain suspicious about the contribution of the monarchy.

    Afterall, if the Royal Family are able to generate as much as £211 million, aswell as enough private income to necessitate around £3 million in taxes, then why do they need that £41.5 million injection from the treasury in the first place?

    Why not pay that money out of their own pocket, and put only £169.5 million back into the treasury?

    And I think that the issue of money SHOULD be considered when we talk about the constitutional future of our country. We must ask ourselves the question 'could an alternative head of state generate this type of income if he was elected, rather than given his position by heredity?'. My guess would be 'yes', based on the fact that there's no reason why being of a particular family would make you a better income-generator as head of state. But there's every reason to believe that you'd be better qualified for the job, overall, if you were elected, or appointed by some system other than heredity.
    Well they don’t get to keep that £211 mil; it’s a straight swap for the civil list etc. I would be perfectly happy for the Windsor’s to not get any money from the government as long as the government honoured the agreement and returned the revenue from the Crown Estate. And it is ridiculous to say an elected HoS would be able to generate the same amount of revenue as the Windsor’s have, unless you want to restrict the nominees to the Sunday Times rich list, and even then I doubt president whoever would be willing to surrender his own cash to the treasury.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pocket Calculator)
    but you don't really need a bluewater navy for defence...
    how do you know what we need? how do you know how the attack might come?
    defense is all about air/sea/nuclear.

    not much of defense with a weak navy...a spanner in the works
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by MrJolly1902)
    how do you know what we need? how do you know how the attack might come?
    defense is all about air/sea/nuclear.

    not much of defense with a weak navy...a spanner in the works
    Who the kuck is going to attack the UK?

    Be quiet ignorant cocainesniffer.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heyjude)
    This may surprise you but not everyone who recievces benefits is 'scrounging'. The vast majority spend it on you know, 'worthless luxuries', like food and clothes for their family.
    Yet there are a proportion who spend it on garbage, and they are the ones in question. Keep up, love.

    (Original post by Heyjude)
    Try 'engaging your brain' and check out independant and official statistical data rather than the propaganda and bile spued out by the far-right media.
    Source?

    (Original post by Heyjude)
    If this isn't a troll, you're the most stupid, ignorant, prejudice, spoilt **** I've actually ever encountered.
    An extensive string of lazy adjectives, which are suited to the playground certainly will not offend me. I suggest you take off your rose-tinted glasses and enter the real world, you're clearly drowning within a sea of socialist drivel.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJolly1902)
    how do you know what we need? how do you know how the attack might come?
    defense is all about air/sea/nuclear.

    not much of defense with a weak navy...a spanner in the works
    errr and land? We should have troops in northern france and Scandinavia.

    We also need a tunnel network so we are ready for underground incursions.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Who the kuck is going to attack the UK?

    Be quiet ignorant cocainesniffer.
    In ten or twenty years, who knows?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Who the *uck is going to attack the UK?

    Be quiet ignorant cocainesniffer.
    How do you know, might happen in the future...your such a fool.
    did they predict world war 1 and 2? and all the other wars.

    no one knows how, politics change and wars start.. and when.

    why the hell you Indians spend on defense when 800 million poor *******s
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you cut all benefits I'm pretty certain there would be a rise in crime and a greater burden on the public health system. All of which I believe cost money to combat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Who the kuck is going to attack the UK?

    Be quiet ignorant cocainesniffer.
    Not simply who will attack UK, but how will the UK project itself to maintain it's commitments? Nuclear is something we don't wish to ever resort to, but can you dream of what would happen if we didn't have it? For this reason (and more) we require the Royal Navy.

    :top:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    Source?
    NAO? Give a try at 'knowing something' you might like it.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Renner)
    In ten or twenty years, who knows?
    :facepalm2:

    Europeans face absolutely no external threat.

    They face many INTERNAL threats, but no country in their right mind will do anything to Europe.

    And the new powers of this world, India and China have no interest whatsoever in Europe (territorially).
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    I'm referring to those people who have been on benefits for years, even pre-recession and spend the money on crap. Ministers have been moaning about lack of funding for the armed forces, so why doesn't Labour start taking people off benefits to fund their wars?



    'Social protection' obviously being a fancy word for mainly benefits.
    That was my EXCAT reaction when I saw the news. 15 billions in benefits for housing alone compared to a few millions..

    I would rather my tax go to 'fradulent' (or not) soldiers who have been injured! Who could blame them for claiming the extra pennies when they are treated like crap when they come home. Or lazy people who can't be arsed to work...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJolly1902)
    did they predict world war 1 and 2?
    errrrr yes they did, about 3-4 years ahead in both cases.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by djmarkmclachlan)
    Not simply who will attack UK, but how will the UK project itself to maintain it's commitments? Nuclear is something we don't wish to ever resort to, but can you dream of what would happen if we didn't have it? For this reason (and more) we require the Royal Navy.

    :top:
    Well if you're talking about defending overseas interests and territories then sure, you need the Royal Navy. But the British Isles might as well go without an army, except for peacekeeping duties (NI), and there's really no point keeping an airforce or navy around to deal with any threats specific to the British Isles.

    Europe is about as safe as it gets, when it comes to external threats.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,906

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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