5 Million British children face poverty because of welfare reforms

[Anna B]

It is difficult to argue against that, but it is only going to happen if those without get equal opportunities and learn to take them. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the current aid systems are designed to prevent that from happening and to keep preferred lackeys in power.

 

The more we pull our hands off of the dirty business that is going on and isolate those that refuse their populations equality and liberty the easier it will be to fulfil that right.

 

You could be right.

 

But it doesn't help that their politicians are treated as 'part of the club' when they are actually despots and dictators. I can only hope that behind closed doors they are treated with the contempt they deserve, but I doubt it.

 

Public opinion might help. But with people like *ash * and their love of people with money no matter how they obtain it, I'm not holding my breath.

[*_ash_*]

You are so wrong.

 

What did I write that was wrong?

 

You are very negative, that's not an insult, that's an observation. And it is right.

 

These are digs...

 

'he didn't exactly come from 'nothing,' even though that's the impression he likes to create'

 

'signing up Mike Oldfield, (another public schoolboy)', why put 'another public schoolboy'?

 

Have you ever seen Mike Oldfield?

 

And another one veiled in bold... 'I have absolutely nothing against wealthy individuals. Good luck to them.'

 

 

What I am against is poverty.

 

Who isn't?! Is that to use the obvious populist angle?

 

 

When you see images on the TV of poor black people starving to death, would you say to them they should get off their backsides and get a job? No, you would realise (I hope) that it's much more complicated than that - no jobs, no opportunity, no welfare safety net, no political choice, no real infrastructure, etc. for a start. Yet some of these countries are potentially wealthy, as I tried to explain with Nigeria, and are actually exporting food. And those at the top and the politicians are often billionaires. India has more millionaires per capita than anywhere else on earth, yet again it also has rampant poverty, and you can't say they are not willing to work. One of the definitions of a third world country is the size of the gap between rich and poor.

 

And why have these countries so much poverty? Because, their rich people don't pay taxes like our more civilised country's people do. Their governments don't get that money like ours does.

 

Now of course I know it's not like that here. Yet. But unless something is done about the lack of jobs, lack of opportunity, the dismantling of the welfare state, the running down of infrastructure by putting it in the hands of private initiatives, tax avoidance, the lack of link between work and wages etc. it could happen, even people like Mark Carney are saying it. But some people on SF don't see the problem. And that's why I'm always badgering away until people do.

 

Yes, it's not like it here because the state gets the money out of people!

 

Now of course I know it's not like that here. Yet. But unless something is done about the lack of jobs, lack of opportunity, the dismantling of the welfare state, the running down of infrastructure by putting it in the hands of private initiatives, tax avoidance, the lack of link between work and wages etc. it could happen, even people like Mark Carney are saying it. But some people on SF don't see the problem. And that's why I'm always badgering away until people do.

 

^^ more negativity...

 

A tax increase of 1% - 5% could wipe out the deficit, providing everyone pays it, especially the top 1% who as you are keen to point out pay the most (or at least should do as they earn the most,) but you and I know the ordinary people will be clobbered through PAYE, while the rich find ways to avoid it.

 

It would be an interesting experiment if these top 1% (or 10%) all sodded off. Or stopped paying.

 

Let me tell you, the likes of me who works hard doesn't pay any where near enough to cover what this country spends. It might be a wake up call to you if you saw the result.

 

 

You could be right.

 

But it doesn't help that their politicians are treated as 'part of the club' when they are actually despots and dictators. I can only hope that behind closed doors they are treated with the contempt they deserve, but I doubt it.

 

Public opinion might help. But with people like *ash * and their love of people with money no matter how they obtain it, I'm not holding my breath.

 

Another dig.

 

If you think I love people with money, it is YOU that is wrong. I argue realistically, and not with some kind of fairytale idealism that I know won't happen.

 

-

 

And just to go back, this is a thread (or 7 in itself). I know it's not deliberate, but a lot of the idealists in here use this tactic. Post so many things that the argument becomes difficult.

 

But unless something is done about the lack of jobs, lack of opportunity, the dismantling of the welfare state, the running down of infrastructure by putting it in the hands of private initiatives, tax avoidance, the lack of link between work and wages etc

 

---------- Post added 01-06-2014 at 02:05 ----------

 

Sorry for the long delay to reply. I was at setting off for work when you replied.

[Anna B]

What did I write that was wrong?

You are very negative, that's not an insult, that's an observation. And it is right.

 

These are digs...

 

'he didn't exactly come from 'nothing,' even though that's the impression he likes to create'

 

'signing up Mike Oldfield, (another public schoolboy)', why put 'another public schoolboy'?

 

Have you ever seen Mike Oldfield?

 

And another one veiled in bold... 'I have absolutely nothing against wealthy individuals. Good luck to them.'

 

 

 

Try:

'You don't like success'

'You are the most negative person on the forum'

'You are jealous'

'You twist the truth'

'You make sweeping statements and little digs'

 

All vindictive and insulting personal attacks which I take great exception to.

You apparently can't see the irony in accusing ME of sweeping statements...

 

I also clearly said I liked and admired Richard Branson. The so called 'digs' are an accurate, relevant response to the assumption that RB came from 'nothing.'

 

They are facts which you can check out.

 

I cannot be bothered to respond to the rest of your diatribe as it's late, but you might like to respond to the OP's statement that '5 million British children face poverty because of welfare cuts' with a few actualfacts of your own, rather than 'sweeping generalisations.'

[*_ash_*]

Try:

'You don't like success'

'You are the most negative person on the forum'

'You are jealous'

'You twist the truth'

'You make sweeping statements and little digs'

 

All vindictive and insulting personal attacks which I take great exception to.

You apparently can't see the irony in accusing ME of sweeping statements...

 

I've removed one, as I probably couldn't show that conclusively.

The 'don't like success' had a question mark on it.

 

-

 

What sweeping statements have I written?

 

What are vindictive and insulting attacks?!

 

-

 

I also clearly said I liked and admired Richard Branson. The so called 'digs' are an accurate, relevant response to the assumption that RB came from 'nothing.'

 

They are facts which you can check out.

 

And still you can't see it. Let me spell it out.

 

Look at what you apparently can't see...

 

 

You read a quote saying 'went from nothing', and made (twisted it slightly) it into 'came from nothing' , and then produced a lengthy arguement against that.

 

With tactics like that, it either shows your veiled dislike for successful people, or it's not deliberate, in which case, I'll leave it, there's no point discussing things.

 

-

 

I cannot be bothered to respond to the rest of your diatribe as it's late, but you might like to respond to the OP's statement that '5 million British children face poverty because of welfare cuts' with a few actualfacts of your own, rather than 'sweeping generalisations.'

 

Again, what sweeping generalisations?

 

I answered the part where you mentioned Nigeria and India which was your comparison to the OP. That was on topic, and this was true was it not? (with a sprinkling of corruption mixed in )

[Anna B]

I've removed one, as I probably couldn't show that conclusively.

The 'don't like success' had a question mark on it.

 

-

 

What sweeping statements have I written?

 

What are vindictive and insulting attacks?!

 

-

 

 

 

And still you can't see it. Let me spell it out.

 

Look at what you apparently can't see...

 

 

You read a quote saying 'went from nothing', and made (twisted it slightly) it into 'came from nothing' , and then produced a lengthy arguement against that.

 

With tactics like that, it either shows your veiled dislike for successful people, or it's not deliberate, in which case, I'll leave it, there's no point discussing things.

 

-

 

 

 

Again, what sweeping generalisations?

 

I answered the part where you mentioned Nigeria and India which was your comparison to the OP. That was on topic, and this was true was it not? (with a sprinkling of corruption mixed in )

 

If you can't see how rude you were being then I despair...

There is a world of difference between attacking an argument, (perfectly acceptable) and attacking the poster. (Not acceptable) I used your name in the post to try and show you how it feels, tho' it's something I rarely do.

 

Also there is a general feeling among some posters on SF that it's OK to call unemployed people 'scroungers' and the like. It's not. With some it's so vindictive it borders on hate crime. The majority of unemployed don't want to be on benefits, have paid into a system for years, and would love a job.

 

The other myth" on SF is that if only they pulled their socks up they could start their own business and become rich and famous, quoting people like Richard Branson as examples of this sort of success. 'If he can do it so can you.'

 

I was simply pointing out that he had a lot of advantages that most of us don't have that helped him to succeed. This is not jealousy or negative, it's a fact. I never said he had it easy, I said he had help and influential contacts. When you start to dig, most successful entrepreneurs do. Not all, but most.

 

The sixties was the age of the working class, when they truly did have a chance of breaking out, and some did, via music and enterprise, building lucrative careers for themselves. It was even the fashion to have a regional accent and say you came from a humble background even if you didn't (how middle class was Mick Jagger even though he took pains to cover it up?) to help their career.

 

But times have changed dramatically. Which is why I used the word myth* with regards to this lessening of opportunity, not because of 'negativity' but because it's a fact, that 80% of new businesses fail in the first year, and, more importantly, leave the owners in debt.

 

That doesn't mean people shouldn't try, but they should be aware of how good (and lucky,) they need to be to stand any chance of success.

 

Hard work alone just won't cut it.

 

As for extending the arguments into other areas, I was quoting Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England whose opinions appear to coincide with mine, so he must be 'negative' too. If people won't admit there are serious problems, how can they be solved?

 

I think the huge swing to UKIP suggests most people recognise we have problems that the government is ignoring. Are they being 'negative' also, or are they trying to make people listen?

 

I love this country, and want to see it improve. The time for sweeping problems under the carpet has gone.

[Mecky]

I think the huge swing to UKIP suggests most people recognise we have problems that the government is ignoring. Are they being 'negative' also, or are they trying to make people listen?

 

Well, that's what the government gets for kicking most people in the head for so long. I don't think any amount of electoral bribing can remedy that, but god help us if UKIP get into No 10

[Guest]

A lot of parents need to man up and just admit to themselves that they foolishly indebted themselves with mobile phone/sky contracts and 80 inch TV's and cars etc on finance, not to mention their chain smoking. This is the biggest contributing factor to many families current plight. I was a little guilty of this in the past myself but I now know to live within my means.

[cgksheff]

There will always be people, including children, in poverty in the UK ..... by definition.

[Lotusflower]

A lot of parents need to man up and just admit to themselves that they foolishly indebted themselves with mobile phone/sky contracts and 80 inch TV's and cars etc on finance, not to mention their chain smoking. This is the biggest contributing factor to many families current plight. I was a little guilty of this in the past myself but I now know to live within my means.

 

Does that include the women then?

[Mecky]

A lot of parents need to man up and just admit to themselves that they foolishly indebted themselves with mobile phone/sky contracts and 80 inch TV's and cars etc on finance, not to mention their chain smoking. This is the biggest contributing factor to many families current plight. I was a little guilty of this in the past myself but I now know to live within my means.

 

mmm let me think where you got that assumption from