Politics and Other Views

[runningman1]

Benefits are not borrowed, its a gift, to raise the living standards of the poor. There is no verbal or written agreement to return the money, whether that is housing benefit or mortgage relief.

 

What about the 2nd part of the definition, "lives off others". I'm gong to be kind and say your failure to comment on that was an oversight.

[El Cid]

I guess you have the same views as Oliver Letwin? I guess that is ok, he has apologised tho, so that is ok

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/30/oliver-letwin-blocked-help-for-black-youth-after-1985-riots

[runningman1]

I guess you have the same views as Oliver Letwin? I guess that is ok, he has apologised tho, so that is ok

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/30/oliver-letwin-blocked-help-for-black-youth-after-1985-riots

 

What has anyone said about black youth in this thread? What a tasteless strawman you present. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[El Cid]

What about the 2nd part of the definition, "lives off others". I'm gong to be kind and say your failure to comment on that was an oversight.

 

The CPS claims that 53.4 per cent of total households received more in benefits than they paid in taxes in 2010/11 – compared to 43.1 per cent in 1979 and 43.8 per cent in 2000/01

 

So most people, "live off others".

 

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html#ixzz3vnalWJrs

[JFKvsNixon]

Does the "free at the point of use" care by the NHS and/or the education at the schools count as a benefit?

[El Cid]

What has anyone said about black youth in this thread? What a tasteless strawman you present. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Are you not able to discuss different peoples views?

[runningman1]

The CPS claims that 53.4 per cent of total households received more in benefits than they paid in taxes in 2010/11 – compared to 43.1 per cent in 1979 and 43.8 per cent in 2000/01

 

So most people, "live off others".

 

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html#ixzz3vnalWJrs

 

I am aware of that the majority of people take more than they put in. What makes you think I wasn't?

 

I am a net contributer

 

Are you not able to discuss different peoples views?

 

Yes I am, that's why I joined this forum and why I am on digital spy. However you stated that you thought someone on here agreed that social spending on black people should be cut as it would promote drug dealing and rastafarian culture.

 

I have looked at this thread and failed to identify why you made this statement. Would you be able to explain please?

[Eric Arthur]

Are you not able to discuss different peoples views?

 

You don't see to be. Instead of saying scroungers would it be more helpful to say workshy?

[unbeliever]

The CPS claims that 53.4 per cent of total households received more in benefits than they paid in taxes in 2010/11 – compared to 43.1 per cent in 1979 and 43.8 per cent in 2000/01

 

So most people, "live off others".

 

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html#ixzz3vnalWJrs

 

Yes.

The top 10% subsidise the rest of us.

Which is why I get so frustrated when politicians and others suggest we should be angry at them and they need to be punished.

 

You seem to be trying to distract us from the original point.

 

Let me remind you.

Labour operate the politics of envy and division. They seek to whip up anger, resentment and jealousy against those who are the source of most government funding and without whom the financial collapse of the state would be inevitable.

 

There is a consensus in mainstream politics that the most successful will pay far more into the system than the less successful. In fact that in net terms, many people take far more out than they put in.

 

Yes, we provide free money and services to those who cannot provide for themselves. Those who steal that money by pretending to be helpless are the worst kind of scum and I make no apologies for seeking to stop them.

 

Most people are rightly displeased when those who could contribute more seek to avoid doing so. Such people present themselves as incapable when they are in fact lazy. Labour and the unions (same thing really) seek to characterise criticism of those who play the system in this way as an attack on the poor. That's a vile lie which I for one find infuriating.

Edited December 30, 2015 by unbeliever

[El Cid]

Most people are rightly displeased when those who could contribute more seek to avoid doing so.

 

Those types of people are in the majority, the ones that seek to contribute less; they are rich and poor, Conservative and Labour.

 

I have forgotten what this thread is about, but I do find that many Conservatives see things more in black and white. Those at the bottom scheming to get the best for themselves, are different people from those at the top and middle.

The people at the bottom, the scroungers, lie and cheat, just the same as those at the top lie and cheat.

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2015 at 12:51 ----------

 

You don't see to be. Instead of saying scroungers would it be more helpful to say workshy?

 

Workshy is a less insulting word, so in that respect it is better. But it implies that the position that they are in, is as a result of their own attitude; when in fact we are all brought up in a system with many faults.

It could easily be argued that any parent has a full time job looking after a child, we give them money in order to support them.

The work-less people that I know, seem to have a lower intelligence, I think most employers would not employ them.