Politics

[Happy Face 29]

And middle England is lapping it up. It's infuriating. These bastards might just get away with it if we're not careful

 

Eye-opening to see the numbers like.

 

£16bn goes unpaid to the poorest people because they're too proud or ill-informed to actually make the claim for what they're entitled to. About a tenth of that goes to shits scamming a little more than the paltry sum they're allowed. The poor deserve a hearty pat on the back for the extent to which collectively they refuse handouts.

 

Taxpayers on the other hand collectively take every opportunity they can to fleece the government of at least £30bn. Not happy being as affluent as they are, they still want more for themselves.

[Dr Gloom 21959]

In that case you need to re visit history.

 

There are so many things the welfare state pays for now that was never its intention when it was thought up.

 

the welfare state was put in place to support the people in society that need help. after the second world war a social contract was established based on the right to work in life-long jobs based on full employment, the eradication of poverty by granting minimum income and public assistance to prevent social exclusion and investment in equality in terms of healthcare, (the nhs, education, trransport etc etc)

 

the tories have long wanted to rip this contract up. they privatised transport, now they're trying to do the same to the nhs. and now using the financial crisis as to cover up a long term ambition to slash the welfare state. let's be absolutely clear. the welfare state has fuck all to do with the deficit, a fact already established in this thread.

 

it's one of this country's great institutions and it's worth fighting for. it certainly hasn't grown too big and cutting it will do precisely fuck all when it comes to reducing the deficit. it will only hurt the poor. indefensible really.

[Christmas Tree 4729]

 

yeah, let's fuck over the poor. as long as i'm alright.

 

wanker

 

Feeding the poor is one thing, but buying them 46 inch screens and cars and takeaways and taxis and fags and cider is another.

 

Masturbator.

[Dr Gloom 21959]

Feeding the poor is one thing, but buying them 46 inch screens and cars and takeaways and taxis and fags and cider is another.

 

Masturbator.

 

yeah, because that's what being on benefits is like

[Christmas Tree 4729]

Just came across this and had to laugh....,

 

"It is a minority in my view but it hacks people off and I understand why it hacks people off because they say, look, I'm working all the hours God sends, I'm working 50/60 hours a week... and I'm struggling to make ends meet and I feel the person next door isn't doing their bit."

 

 

.....,,,,

 

 

Sounds ver familiar doesn't it?

 

Guess who said it?

 

Politicians man

[Happy Face 29]

Like millions living past 70 because of that pesky nhs.

 

Krugman looked at that and it's not really a story of longer life expectancies for healthy adults, but of reduced infant mortality.

 

When there were far more children dying at birth, they weren't contributing to the tax pot for their whole lives...but they were bringing down life expectancy.

 

Now more children survive (as you say thanks to the NHS), there are more people contributing to the coffers that goes hand in hand with the increased life expectancy.

 

He refers to US figures, but the principal applies everywhere....

 

The Life Expectancy Zombie

 

If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.

 

 

As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21, and men who attained age 65 could expect to collect Social Security benefits for almost 13 years (and the numbers are even higher for women).

 

Also, it should be noted that there were already 7.8 million Americans age 65 or older in 1935 (cf. Table 2), so there was a large and growing population of people who could receive Social Security. Indeed, the actuarial estimates used by the Committee on Economic Security (CES) in designing the Social Security program projected that there would be 8.3 million Americans age 65 or older by 1940 (when monthly benefits started). So Social Security was not designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits.

[Christmas Tree 4729]

 

Which is why I despise the establishment in the uk and have a healthy contempt for most of the people who've done nothing to change it and instead worship the class that pisses on them.

 

I'd love to see a revolution but people are humble sheep who spout shite about how they've had it too good and now deserve to be punished while the rich just laugh.

 

I hope the seeds they've sown result in a violent response.

 

See Renton, that a proper response, that's a belief.

 

Not falling for every bit of spin.

[Christmas Tree 4729]

 

Probably because Labour presided over a booming economy for the vast majority of their time in power and invested shitloads in schools and hospitals without cutting benefits.

 

The poor weren't paying the cost for Labours investment. There was almost a half trillion more on GDP in 2007 than there was in 2011.

 

 

Course the poor are paying for it! We are all paying for it! Health authority's are going bust because of scandalous PFI's set up by Labour.

 

None of these shiny new schools and colleges were paid for by the booming economy (left by the last Tory government btw), they were bought on the never ever ever Wonga credit.

[Toonpack 9455]

Because of the social problems that those with issues cause for the emergency services etc?...

 

or should we just shoot them?

 

Why should we fund their "issues", that type of person irrespective of how the money is dished out will take from the Mrs anyway, there should be a crime of social irresponsibility and the fuckers should be locked up.

 

We certainly shouldn't encourage them to breed.

 

Never understood with the drug problems (as an example) how users get arrested/fined/locked up but aren't screwed down to reveal their source of supply and so forth up the supply chain, and that goes for scratter users and celebs.

 

When I was a youngun I worked in debt collection for Northern Gas as was, office side, arranging payment terms for those who couldn't pay, always used to piss me off no end, there were the really genuine hardship cases (who really tried to help themselves) and then there were those who would roll in to reception after 3.00 (when the pubs shut) stinking of drink to explain why they'd missed their payments.

 

Will never forget bumping into a lad I went to school with on the metro and he mentioned he was a social worker and I said "bane of my life profession, and mentioned the hardship versus drunks scenario, and how in my experience DHSS did fuck all for the genuine folks but fought tooth and nail for the wasters" he replied in respect of the wasters "They've got to have their recreation". Couldn't believe it, This was in the days of no paternity/maternity leave or childcare bollocks, if you had a kid you your Mrs had to leave work and you had to support them all and if you didn't have the cash you didn't get your recreation.

 

No matter how much you throw at these types it'll get pissed up a wall/smoked/injected/gambled. End of.

[Christmas Tree 4729]

 

the welfare state was put in place to support the people in society that need help. after the second world war a social contract was established based on the right to work in life-long jobs based on full employment, the eradication of poverty by granting minimum income and public assistance to prevent social exclusion and investment in equality in terms of healthcare, (the nhs, education, trransport etc etc)

 

the tories have long wanted to rip this contract up. they privatised transport, now they're trying to do the same to the nhs. and now using the financial crisis as to cover up a long term ambition to slash the welfare state. let's be absolutely clear. the welfare state has fuck all to do with the deficit, a fact already established in this thread.

 

it's one of this country's great institutions and it's worth fighting for. it certainly hasn't grown too big and cutting it will do precisely fuck all when it comes to reducing the deficit. it will only hurt the poor. indefensible really.

 

All parties agreed the welfare state had vastly outgrown its intended purpose and needed mass reforming.

 

It was Labours intention to do it had they won in 2010. They had a lot of these plans in place and were ready to go which is partly why Frank Field was recruited after the election to work on the reforms.

 

 

[Toonpack 9455]

Because we're supposed to be a society. All in it together remember.

 

Like it or not, there is a group of folks who cannot, and will not, function in a society, an underclass if you will, always been there, always will be there no matter what you do.

 

Fuck me, I've been to visit houses where, despite perfectly functional plumbing, there's been pails of shit around the place, weeks worth of dirty nappies all over etc etc but always plenty of booze around.

 

As well as a society there is an equal social responsibility on all and that ain't going to come about by hand holding.

[Christmas Tree 4729]

 

Like millions living past 70 because of that pesky nhs.

 

This is an interesting point for discussion at some point but not in a political way. A report recently said that half of all people born after 2005 will live til they are under 100

 

Not so long back life expectancy was late 40's

 

Should there be no limit to how long we try to keep people alive?

 

It's said that a lot of these people will spend there last 20 or 30 years in misery due to the effects of old age etched?

 

Obviously a massive drain on a very rich society never mind the poorer status we seem to be heading towards.

 

What if they find a way to get around most organ failure?

 

Mans greatest achievement also one of society's greatest threats?

[Happy Face 29]

 

Course the poor are paying for it! We are all paying for it! Health authority's are going bust because of scandalous PFI's set up by Labour.

 

None of these shiny new schools and colleges were paid for by the booming economy (left by the last Tory government btw), they were bought on the never ever ever Wonga credit.

 

Given GDP we could afford it.

 

The budget in 2001 was in surplus.

 

In 2007, the year of the crash, the deficit was a third of what it is now.

 

It's like the Mike Ashley debate, getting the club relegated doesn't sort out the finances. There comes a window where you have to spend. A healthy population, educated to the highest standards in the world is good for the economy.

 

Unsurprising how the posters falling on either side of those arguments are the same

[Renton 21640]

 

 

 

Course the poor are paying for it! We are all paying for it! Health authority's are going bust because of scandalous PFI's set up by Labour.

 

None of these shiny new schools and colleges were paid for by the booming economy (left by the last Tory government btw), they were bought on the never ever ever Wonga credit.

 

All Labour's fault again .

 

You've admitted in the past you know fuck all about economics but have cited organisations such the IMF to support the governments austerity policies. For some time now these organisations have been asking for a plan B but the government steadfastly ignores them now. Can you explain this?

[Dr Gloom 21959]

All parties agreed the welfare state had vastly outgrown its intended purpose and needed mass reforming.

 

It was Labours intention to do it had they won in 2010. They had a lot of these plans in place and were ready to go which is partly why Frank Field was recruited after the election to work on the reforms.

 

you keep saying this but there's no evidence to back it up at all.

 

yes, labour would have had to try to cut the deficit too. that is common knowledge. but to say they would have cut as quickly or as deeply as the tories without a plan b - or that they would have gone after the welfare state in the same way simply isn't true.

 

the deficit is a problem but even leading economists like martin wolf agree that osborne's pig headed approach isn't working. if this strategy isn't helping the economy, and is actually hurting it, why continue?

[NJS 4389]

 

All parties agreed the welfare state had vastly outgrown its intended purpose and needed mass reforming.

 

It was Labours intention to do it had they won in 2010. They had a lot of these plans in place and were ready to go which is partly why Frank Field was recruited after the election to work on the reforms.

 

No. They have to say that because people like you have swallowed the lie and they can't win with the truth.

 

 

[Renton 21640]

 

 

This is an interesting point for discussion at some point but not in a political way. A report recently said that half of all people born after 2005 will live til they are under 100

 

Not so long back life expectancy was late 40's

 

Should there be no limit to how long we try to keep people alive?

 

It's said that a lot of these people will spend there last 20 or 30 years in misery due to the effects of old age etched?

 

Obviously a massive drain on a very rich society never mind the poorer status we seem to be heading towards.

 

What if they find a way to get around most organ failure?

 

Mans greatest achievement also one of society's greatest threats?

 

Jesus Wept.

 

I'm all for selective euthanasia of certain people in their mid-40s like.

[Christmas Tree 4729]

 

All Labour's fault again .

 

You've admitted in the past you know fuck all about economics but have cited organisations such the IMF to support the governments austerity policies. For some time now these organisations have been asking for a plan B but the government steadfastly ignores them now. Can you explain this?

 

No good rolling your eyes Labour could have used the booming years to do loads, pay for loads. Instead they dragged us into an illegal war so that Blair could look good in the USA and hocked the nation to its eyeballs.

 

I'm honest enough to understand that in reality, the current economic situation is unprecedented and there is no clear guaranteed way out of it.

 

You on the other hand seem to think there is some magic policy that will turn it all around.

 

Much cleverer people than me or you will argue over this for years to come, the bottom line however is like I have told you many times before.

 

The credit bubble that kept us going through the 90's and 2000's went pop.

 

There are no bubbles left and the average business and citizen has trouble getting credit. Until they can we will continue to bump along.

 

Labour and Coalition have tried various ways to get banks to lend but can't do it.

 

Even if they could, the Eurozone (our main market) has similar and often more problems).

 

I think we are stuck like this for years to come.

[Happy Face 29]

This is an interesting point for discussion at some point but not in a political way. A report recently said that half of all people born after 2005 will live til they are under 100

Thay already are under 100

 

Not so long back life expectancy was late 40's

Source? I think you'll have to go pretty far back, certainly before the DSS started, probably centuries.

 

Should there be no limit to how long we try to keep people alive?

No

 

It's said that a lot of these people will spend there last 20 or 30 years in misery due to the effects of old age etched?

By who?

 

Obviously a massive drain on a very rich society never mind the poorer status we seem to be heading towards.

The vast majority of elderly have made their contributions. Since the welfare state was introduced the number of women working has also increased exponentially.

 

What if they find a way to get around most organ failure?

It'll be great.

 

Mans greatest achievement also one of society's greatest threats?

Overpopulation is a massive threat environmentally. Not so much economically. All those people are consumers.

 

[Gemmill 44967]

I honestly don't know why you allow yourselves to get dragged into it with CT. He's basically an updated version of Leazes. Constructing long well written posts to defeat him with is pointless, cos he just ignores them.

[Happy Face 29]

Like it or not, there is a group of folks who cannot, and will not, function in a society, an underclass if you will, always been there, always will be there no matter what you do.

 

Aye.

 

Fuckin' bankers!

[Dr Gloom 21959]

i interviewed a number of job seekers last year for two different pieces - one up in the north east (seaham), plus one in the welsh valleys (pontypridd and merhyr tydfill). they were desperate and sad people. they were talking about the lack of opportunities for people in deprived areas and having to budget to make sure they had enough money to eat and pay their heating bills. they certainly weren't living the kind of privileged life courtesy of the state that the daily mail would have you believe.

[Toonpack 9455]

Aye.

 

Fuckin' bankers!

 

Wouldn't disagree that they are a significant part of the problem.

[Christmas Tree 4729]

 

you keep saying this but there's no evidence to back it up at all.

 

yes, labour would have had to try to cut the deficit too. that is common knowledge. but to say they would have cut as quickly or as deeply as the tories without a plan b - or that they would have gone after the welfare state in the same way simply isn't true.

 

the deficit is a problem but even leading economists like martin wolf agree that osborne's pig headed approach isn't working. if this strategy isn't helping the economy, and is actually hurting it, why continue?

 

You have to cut through a lot of the pr ( from both sides ) and understand two things.

 

1. Spending hasn't been cut under the coalition. Increases on spending were cut.

 

2. The reforms to welfare state haven't begun.

 

 

Therefore these two issues really have little effect, if any on the current economy.

 

People and businesses not been able to get credit (here and abroad) is the main issue. Until that can be solved by any political party we are fucked.

[Toonpack 9455]

i interviewed a number of job seekers last year for two different pieces - one up in the north east (seaham), plus one in the welsh valleys (pontypridd and merhyr tydfill). they were desperate and sad people. they were talking about the lack of opportunities for people in deprived areas and having to budget to make sure they had enough money to eat and pay their heating bills. they certainly weren't living the kind of privileged life courtesy of the state that the daily mail would have you believe.

 

Don't doubt that for a minute, they are the folk who should be getting every help, sadly there's a load who do "sponge" and that's all they are interested in, as far as I can see there is no drive to identify and tackle that issue so that those who need the help get it and those who don't give a shit suffer enough to start to "care" because sadly tough is all they'll understand.