Jump to content

The Welfare & Benefits System


Assume Nothing

Recommended Posts

Or they just make themselves available, much like early hospitals.

 

Also, aid doesn't have to be organized. Can be as simple as bringing dinner to a family in a tough time, which many people still do.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All I have to say on the welfare issue is that my father is in the emergency services and regularly gets called to places where, "welfare rats" people who live off of the welfare and nothing else, lives most of the places are like pigs stys he says. The people in them have fancy T.V.'s the newest game systems and everything else, but they just live in their own filth and everything else there is nothing physically wrong with them and they could work tomorrow if they got off of their asses, but they don't. This pisses me off incredibly because my grandmother recently went through a divorce with my grandfather (wasn't really close with the grandfather myself anyway) and she highly diabetic and takes at least 4 pills a day just for that, because my grandfather was quite old school my grandmother doesn't have a car or a liscense or anything else. She applied for assistance to get a new roof on her house as she needed it and was turned down because she didn't make enough money of all the possible reasons, she was on welfare, at the time because she didn't work. She went out to find herself a job, she now works at an assisted living/nursing home and all is going well for the most part... But what irks me is that people who are young will just live off of this "free money" while people actually go out and bust their asses to try and better their situation only to pay for these free loaders to live the way they do...

 

The main point there is to say, people who live off of welfare piss me right off because I know several people who go out and work their asses off to try and better their situation while others just sit there and in the end just take the money said people worked so hard for, and all they did was sit on their ass. What needs to be done is for it not to be welfare but for it to be a rehabilitation type thing, anyone on it who isn't infirmed, ill or anything major should be put into programs which help them to obtain jobs instead of just allowing them to sit on their asses. The unfortunate truth of it though, is that for the goverment it is cheaper to pay them their monthly check than it is for them to turn them into productive citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or they just make themselves available, much like early hospitals.

 

Also, aid doesn't have to be organized. Can be as simple as bringing dinner to a family in a tough time, which many people still do.

Surely not every family who needs a meal during a tough time can have one provided by a charitable person, that's impractical. How could you identify them? If they make themselves available, who do they make themselves available to? You seem to be against a centralized welfare system, but in reality what you support is just a series of locally central systems.

If you can't tell the difference between the two, I'm not sure it's worth my time trying to explain it.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is a series of locally centralized systems of welfare, perhaps overseen by a larger governing body, really any different?

 

No, I think the difference is that you feel you've been cheated by people mooching off welfare and so you (and not specifically you, generally people that make such an argument) think that only you can be a fair arbiter of who does and does not need aid. And I say that's impractical.

You just don't get it. One size will never fit all, and that's a failure of socialism.

 

It's the difference between 50 different family owned restaurants, and 50 McDonalds. Except it's even worse than that, as each McDonalds is locally owned and operated.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't a man alive that would stand in the way of charities if they could honestly provide to everyone in need.

 

Of course there is. There's people who deliberately and brutally stand in the way of charitable actions all the time.

slobdf.jpg

Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Zoot!

Oh, she is a naughty person, and she must pay the penalty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is a series of locally centralized systems of welfare, perhaps overseen by a larger governing body, really any different?

 

No, I think the difference is that you feel you've been cheated by people mooching off welfare and so you (and not specifically you, generally people that make such an argument) think that only you can be a fair arbiter of who does and does not need aid. And I say that's impractical.

You just don't get it. One size will never fit all, and that's a failure of socialism.

 

It's the difference between 50 different family owned restaurants, and 50 McDonalds. Except it's even worse than that, as each McDonalds is locally owned and operated.

 

Socialism? :unsure:

slobdf.jpg

Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Zoot!

Oh, she is a naughty person, and she must pay the penalty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't a man alive that would stand in the way of charities if they could honestly provide to everyone in need.

 

Of course there is. There's people who deliberately and brutally stand in the way of charitable actions all the time.

Point

Evidence

Explanation.

 

It's not hard, and one out of three ain't good enough.

 

EDIT: Sorry, just noticed from the post after you're an obvious troll. How anyone can comment on the welfare state and not sincerely know the principles of socialism is beyond me.

Edited by Ginger_Warrior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't a man alive that would stand in the way of charities if they could honestly provide to everyone in need.

 

Of course there is. There's people who deliberately and brutally stand in the way of charitable actions all the time.

Point

Evidence

Explanation.

 

It's not hard, and one out of three ain't good enough.

 

EDIT: Sorry, just noticed from the post after you're an obvious troll. How anyone can comment on the welfare state and not sincerely know the principles of socialism is beyond me.

 

Actually, it’s you people in here who don’t appear to comprehend what “socialism” means within this context. You all bandy about the word in such a manner as to demonstrate that you’re playing it up as some form of dirty word. There's not a social or political organization or structure that has not been positively affect by socialism. You're problem is that you don't understand the dialectic, and you have no appreciation for that which existed before socialism modified it.

 

And anyone who watches the news can see perfect examples of people standing in the way of charitable works all over the world. Watch the next time someone attempts famine relief in Africa, or watch Muslim organizations hinder the efforts of Christian groups in the Middle East. Watch the drug cartels hinder the efforts of the Catholic Church in South America. There’s always someone willing to stand in the way of such charitable acts in order that they can wield “the power” over other people. These things happen every single day. You have to be blind not know about them.

slobdf.jpg

Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Zoot!

Oh, she is a naughty person, and she must pay the penalty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

slobdf.jpg

Oh, wicked, bad, naughty, evil Zoot!

Oh, she is a naughty person, and she must pay the penalty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pile on meaningless examples because none of them have any relevence to the topic? Go ahead. It was pretty obvious my statement didn't extend to humanitarian atrocities in the Middle East or international aid. Next you'll be bringing up Nazi examples in desperation. We're talking about the welfare state. At home.

 

Then you accuse me of thinking socialism is dirty? Go back over my six year posting history on this board and tell me I'm not a socialist. Utterly cretinous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to remind everyone, although this is a touchy subject, and one that people will obviously feel strongly about, please remember to try and not get too personal and perhaps too insulting. Even though you may directing comments toward someones argument, that person may take it as if that comment is directed at them personally.

 

Thanks guys! Look forward to reading some more opinions!

09144a99bb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is totally my view on the matter.

 

I work 40 hours a week in a convience store/restaurant as a supervisor.

My mom works 40 hours a week as a waitress at the age of 58.

My dad drives truck 70-75 hours a week at the age of 58.

 

We pay weekly and bi-weekly for people who are too lazy to work (for the majority) to collect food stamps, use those food stamps on junk food and drinks...and use what cash they do have to buy cigarettes and other trash. I think the system is terrible, and anyone who collects it and does even a portion of what I just said with it should be shot and killed. I don't care how extreme it is. It's pathetic. You complain there are no jobs, well part of it is because you don't want to move off your lazy ass and make a little less..but hey, at least it's honest.

Turnpikes.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is totally my view on the matter.

 

I work 40 hours a week in a convience store/restaurant as a supervisor.

My mom works 40 hours a week as a waitress at the age of 58.

My dad drives truck 70-75 hours a week at the age of 58.

 

We pay weekly and bi-weekly for people who are too lazy to work (for the majority) to collect food stamps, use those food stamps on junk food and drinks...and use what cash they do have to buy cigarettes and other trash. I think the system is terrible, and anyone who collects it and does even a portion of what I just said with it should be shot and killed. I don't care how extreme it is. It's pathetic. You complain there are no jobs, well part of it is because you don't want to move off your lazy ass and make a little less..but hey, at least it's honest.

Then why not stop working and live on welfare?

"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people on welfare should be given a time limit to find employment. Of course people will have disabilities and things preventing them from working, and they should be given special treatment... But I know people who've been on welfare for years, have mustangs, big screen T.V's, and every console you could think of. Yet, I'm unfortunately handicapped, can still make a decent amount for myself working at home, and they refuse to pay me even a fraction of what these other people are getting.

 

Yeah, it's definitely flawed.

09144a99bb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was on benefits for a brief time before I went to university since my course started in January instead of September. I remember making up job searches (basically in England you need to keep a job search diary to show you're looking for work) and nobody ever double-checked anything. I would literally write down what I had done to look for a job in the last two weeks; 10 minutes before my appointment. And yes, all the money I got from benefits went on fun whilst my parents provided everything I needed. The system is beyond easy to abuse and although from the very first payment I already knew I was going to go to University I could easily see how a welfare system this good CREATES laziness. Or, at least, kindles it. I could easily have lived on it, never having to really search for work. The only work you have to do is making up an adequate number of Job searches for someone to quickly glance at and then sign. And in return for this work you can have an adequate existence not too far removed from somebody on minimum wage (and your benefits increase with children/age).

zerker_jane.png

99 farm easy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is totally my view on the matter.

 

I work 40 hours a week in a convience store/restaurant as a supervisor.

My mom works 40 hours a week as a waitress at the age of 58.

My dad drives truck 70-75 hours a week at the age of 58.

 

We pay weekly and bi-weekly for people who are too lazy to work (for the majority) to collect food stamps, use those food stamps on junk food and drinks...and use what cash they do have to buy cigarettes and other trash. I think the system is terrible, and anyone who collects it and does even a portion of what I just said with it should be shot and killed. I don't care how extreme it is. It's pathetic. You complain there are no jobs, well part of it is because you don't want to move off your lazy ass and make a little less..but hey, at least it's honest.

 

I want to briefly take the devil's advocate route here: Why does it matter what they spend it on, if they so choose? If they can live off a fraction of what they get, and decide to spend the rest on luxuries like tobacco, alcohol, or even strippers - why does it matter to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is totally my view on the matter.

 

I work 40 hours a week in a convience store/restaurant as a supervisor.

My mom works 40 hours a week as a waitress at the age of 58.

My dad drives truck 70-75 hours a week at the age of 58.

 

We pay weekly and bi-weekly for people who are too lazy to work (for the majority) to collect food stamps, use those food stamps on junk food and drinks...and use what cash they do have to buy cigarettes and other trash. I think the system is terrible, and anyone who collects it and does even a portion of what I just said with it should be shot and killed. I don't care how extreme it is. It's pathetic. You complain there are no jobs, well part of it is because you don't want to move off your lazy ass and make a little less..but hey, at least it's honest.

 

I want to briefly take the devil's advocate route here: Why does it matter what they spend it on, if they so choose? If they can live off a fraction of what they get, and decide to spend the rest on luxuries like tobacco, alcohol, or even strippers - why does it matter to you?

 

I think the point made is that, if they can afford luxuries, then it means they got more money than they would absolutely need, so they should get less to be less of a burden on society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they deserve to spend it on luxuries if they so choose - but that must mean a compromise on other spending; i.e. a compromise on food. I think a lifestyle with no luxuries is a little too rigid - it's not much of a life worth living, and it doesn't motivate them by depriving them. It might be an idea to give welfare payments in non-monetary terms though, maybe like foodstamps - except it'll be more tightly controlled (e.g. government permits stores/managers to ban people if they obviously exploit the stamps)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't get, is if the welfare lifestyle is sooo easy, why "hard-working" people don't join up?

"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's saying, if it is so easy to live on welfare, why doesn't everyone just drop everything and go join and live on it.

 

My answer is because those who don't live on it or use it try to better themselves and strive to advance farther, so they keep out of it in hopes of getting higher, bigger, and richer.

 

Also on the luxuries thing, I agree they should get less. They should get just barely enough to live on and then if they want luxuries they can go out and do what working people do, take extra shifts and work their <3: of to get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To bring up a point that (I think?) hasn't been mentioned yet:

 

The main reason I personally want to have a welfare system(And one that provides decent money, not just enough to be able to barely survive) are not the jobless themselves, but their children. It's not their fault they were born into such a familiy, and if they have to watch every penny and can buy almost nothing, go to no sports club, etc. it's quite likely they will have problems making contacts to other kids and integrating into society. Every child should have good oppurtunites to make something out of his life, no matter which family it's born into.

 

They should probably work more with not giving out money but rather coupons, to avoid misuse of the money. Some cash should still be available though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To bring up a point that (I think?) hasn't been mentioned yet:

 

The main reason I personally want to have a welfare system(And one that provides decent money, not just enough to be able to barely survive) are not the jobless themselves, but their children. It's not their fault they were born into such a familiy, and if they have to watch every penny and can buy almost nothing, go to no sports club, etc. it's quite likely they will have problems making contacts to other kids and integrating into society. Every child should have good oppurtunites to make something out of his life, no matter which family it's born into.

 

They should probably work more with not giving out money but rather coupons, to avoid misuse of the money. Some cash should still be available though.

Where I live, you get bonuses for kids, a special section on the income tax for sports, and there are programs for under privilaged kids that will help pay for sports.

 

Also on this topic. I know several, and have know several, kids who's parents aren't on welfare, but they don't get to play many sports, why, because their parents have to watch every penny, can buy almost nothing, and go to no sports clubs. People who have jobs like this are trying to better themselves and get out of these situations so I think welfare should be reduced, because of that even people who work sometimes have to watch every penny and everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's saying, if it is so easy to live on welfare, why doesn't everyone just drop everything and go join and live on it.

 

My answer is because those who don't live on it or use it try to better themselves and strive to advance farther, so they keep out of it in hopes of getting higher, bigger, and richer.

 

Also on the luxuries thing, I agree they should get less. They should get just barely enough to live on and then if they want luxuries they can go out and do what working people do, take extra shifts and work their <3: of to get it.

 

I don't think that was the original point. I'm saying 'if they can survive on less than the poverty line level, and can afford a small amount of luxuries on the remainder of their payments - why should they be penalized by being denied part of their payments?

 

I think I could have clarified better - ofcourse, I'm referring to those fully eligible due to pertaining circumstances. I don't think many people want to live in those circumstances - and it's not 'so easy to live on welfare' - which I'm not even sure where that was inferred from. The point was - if they could be frugal and can afford to spend the 'extra' money they receive from benefits on luxuries should they choose to, why should we stop them?

 

I think its fair for those in that kind of situation to have the freedom to choose whether they want to spend it on those things or not. The argument is obviously based around the idea that the amount paid in benefits is fair at approx 60GBP/week (I believe that's what JSA is at the moment?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.