|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 8, 2010 8:54:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2010 9:02:14 GMT
Which means that in effect there are going to be thousands of homeless families with no where to live.
You can't put innocent kids on the street , however well intentioned the comments.
|
|
|
Post by french toast on Oct 8, 2010 9:13:10 GMT
they cant do anything about it.
its like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
plus what about people who could afford to have kids, then lose there job?
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 8, 2010 9:19:18 GMT
Which means that in effect there are going to be thousands of homeless families with no where to live. You can't put innocent kids on the street , however well intentioned the comments. No, there will have to be a line but the simple solution is any child born after June or July next year gets nowt. The situation now is obscene and like they say in the article, he culture of expecting the state to pay for your kids must end. By all means support low income WORKING families if they need it and have a system in place to support families if anyone loses their job or if anything happens to the main earner, but to keep allowing people to see their weekley benefit payment as a 'wage' or a reward from the government for raising their 5 kids is not on. Nobody forces someone to have kids, contraception is free, there is no excuse for it.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Oct 8, 2010 9:33:18 GMT
Let the poor drink the milk, while the rich eat the honey, Let the bums count their blessings, while they count the money
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 8, 2010 9:51:30 GMT
Let the poor drink the milk, while the rich eat the honey, No, let everybody eat the honey, as long as they collect their own and don't expect me to get stung while collecting theirs too! If come next may i can't afford to renew my season ticket, should the government buy it for me? No If in January i can't affort to buy tickets to Download, should the tax payer buy them for me? No If i want another child but can't afford it, should the government pay for it? NO!!!!
|
|
|
Post by wigginbird on Oct 8, 2010 10:11:23 GMT
I can see this not working, as it will be seen as religious persecution, as certain religions encourage followers to have as many children as they can.
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 8, 2010 10:16:52 GMT
I can see this not working, as it will be seen as religious persecution, as certain religions encourage followers to have as many children as they can. But that wouldn't stand up. Nobody is saying you can't have a big family. Have 50 kids if you want to, but you have to support them yourself.
|
|
|
Post by keithy george on Oct 8, 2010 10:22:29 GMT
Let the poor drink the milk, while the rich eat the honey, No, let everybody eat the honey, as long as they collect their own and don't expect me to get stung while collecting theirs too! If come next may i can't afford to renew my season ticket, should the government buy it for me? No If in January i can't affort to buy tickets to Download, should the tax payer buy them for me? No If i want another child but can't afford it, should the government pay for it? NO!!!! What a load of bolocks are u gordon brown?
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 8, 2010 10:55:27 GMT
No, let everybody eat the honey, as long as they collect their own and don't expect me to get stung while collecting theirs too! If come next may i can't afford to renew my season ticket, should the government buy it for me? No If in January i can't affort to buy tickets to Download, should the tax payer buy them for me? No If i want another child but can't afford it, should the government pay for it? NO!!!! What a load of bolocks are you gordon brown? Please explain to me why it is 'bollocks' to expect people to support children they CHOOSE to have, to take responcibility for their own actions and not to get a free ride from the rest of us while putting nothing back. Maybe i am wrong for thinking if you are grown up enough to put you dick in someone, you should be grown up enough to accept the result?
|
|
|
Post by Norfolkstokie in manchester on Oct 8, 2010 10:58:19 GMT
Ah the old 'lifestyle choice' line again. Believe me no one in the right frame of mind would choose to live off job seekers'. £51 a week when they eventually pay it, hanging around at the job centre waiting for them to see you. Having to pretend you've 'always wanted to work in data entry/ call centre etc etc'. And this after 4 years of studying at £3k+ a year tutition fees.
PS I don't have a season ticket this season, and couldn't afford a Glastonbury ticket last week. It's shit at the moment I tell you
|
|
|
Post by jason on Oct 8, 2010 11:00:13 GMT
Well done!
As for religious arguments, there can be none. Let him who is lazy not eat.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Oct 8, 2010 11:10:20 GMT
Here's another bloke who used to say stuff like this...
|
|
|
Post by jason on Oct 8, 2010 11:18:08 GMT
Need one say more Mr. PM
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 8, 2010 11:29:00 GMT
Here's another bloke who used to say stuff like this... ah, the old 'if you question the scroungers, youre worse than Hitler' argument. Again nobody has explained why this suggestion is wrong. People are welcome to have kids, just dont expect someone elce to foot the bill. Norfolkstokie, that doesnt was either. If i didnt work i could get £16000 a year as a single dad. I work full time and get £13000. How is that right?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 8, 2010 11:34:12 GMT
Which means that in effect there are going to be thousands of homeless families with no where to live. You can't put innocent kids on the street , however well intentioned the comments. No, there will have to be a line but the simple solution is any child born after June or July next year gets nowt. The situation now is obscene and like they say in the article, he culture of expecting the state to pay for your kids must end. By all means support low income WORKING families if they need it and have a system in place to support families if anyone loses their job or if anything happens to the main earner, but to keep allowing people to see their weekley benefit payment as a 'wage' or a reward from the government for raising their 5 kids is not on. Nobody forces someone to have kids, contraception is free, there is no excuse for it. + 60miliion There was a couple of scrounging chav lookers on BBC North west news last night, saying all they want is a home, no social housing and they are living with relatives, blah blah blah, and the final sentence, and she's also 5 months pregnant No jobs, no house and a sprog on the way and when they spilt up they will both want a free house/flat therefore doubling the welfare bill for them
|
|
|
Post by Norfolkstokie in manchester on Oct 8, 2010 11:51:17 GMT
Here's another bloke who used to say stuff like this... ah, the old 'if you question the scroungers, youre worse than Hitler' argument. Again nobody has explained why this suggestion is wrong. People are welcome to have kids, just dont expect someone elce to foot the bill. Norfolkstokie, that doesnt was either. If i didnt work i could get £16000 a year as a single dad. I work full time and get £13000. How is that right? It's not, the minimum wage is far too low.
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 8, 2010 12:08:01 GMT
ah, the old 'if you question the scroungers, youre worse than Hitler' argument. Again nobody has explained why this suggestion is wrong. People are welcome to have kids, just dont expect someone elce to foot the bill. Norfolkstokie, that doesnt was either. If i didnt work i could get £16000 a year as a single dad. I work full time and get £13000. How is that right? It's not, the minimum wage is far too low. No, the freebies are too high.
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Oct 8, 2010 12:20:28 GMT
Which means that in effect there are going to be thousands of homeless families with no where to live. You can't put innocent kids on the street , however well intentioned the comments. Exactly. Dealing with the real problem instead of penalising the kids of dull daft girls who can't keep their legs closed doesn't help anyone in the long run, it's just going to produce a more desperate, more angry underclass - but when hasn't Tory government done that?
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 8, 2010 12:46:52 GMT
Which means that in effect there are going to be thousands of homeless families with no where to live. You can't put innocent kids on the street , however well intentioned the comments. Exactly. Dealing with the real problem instead of penalising the kids of dull daft girls who can't keep their legs closed doesn't help anyone in the long run, it's just going to produce a more desperate, more angry underclass - but when hasn't Tory government done that? so what are the real issues? I would say an entire generation who think it is ok not to work and get what they want was a pretty fucking huge problem. If the change is implemented properley ie any kid born 10 months from now gets nothing, would leave no reason for anyone to be angry. They know they wont get a penny so if they have a kid without means to look after it, it is their own stupid selfish fault.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Oct 8, 2010 12:48:43 GMT
Homeless? How exactly? If they can afford buy luxuries then they are receving too much.
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 8, 2010 12:55:16 GMT
Homeless? How exactly? If they can afford buy luxuries then they are receving too much. Luxuries? How dare you!!! Fags, stella, sky tv and a mobile phone are basic human rights dont you know ;)
|
|
|
Post by stokietomo on Oct 8, 2010 14:16:59 GMT
Why cant they just apply a cap, ie only get family allowance on first 2 kids!
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Oct 8, 2010 14:32:24 GMT
I am considering chucking the job in after xmas as I will get more not working. It's the system. If it works for anyone who just gets off a boat then it will work for me. I have payed into the system for over 20 years. Time to get some back before the immigrants have it all!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2010 20:00:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by BoxxyTheLost on Oct 8, 2010 20:10:30 GMT
Exactly. Dealing with the real problem instead of penalising the kids of dull daft girls who can't keep their legs closed doesn't help anyone in the long run, it's just going to produce a more desperate, more angry underclass - but when hasn't Tory government done that? so what are the real issues? I would say an entire generation who think it is ok not to work and get what they want was a pretty fucking huge problem. If the change is implemented properley ie any kid born 10 months from now gets nothing, would leave no reason for anyone to be angry. They know they wont get a penny so if they have a kid without means to look after it, it is their own stupid selfish fault. erm... sorry ENTIRE generation? fuck off! i'm 19 and have been working since i was 13. i'm at uni now and so i get a grant and a student loan (surely you'll be wanting to get rid of these as well) but i certainly don't like in luxury. most of the money i get goes towards rent. without it i wouldn't be able to go to uni and neither would a lot of other people. it's the same with this. just cutting the money WON'T work because it'll end up hurting too many people who need to support. there has to be a different way to work it because there are too many people exploiting the system but just cutting it off from everyone isn't the right way.
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Oct 8, 2010 20:22:30 GMT
so what are the real issues? I would say an entire generation who think it is ok not to work and get what they want was a pretty fucking huge problem. If the change is implemented properley ie any kid born 10 months from now gets nothing, would leave no reason for anyone to be angry. They know they wont get a penny so if they have a kid without means to look after it, it is their own stupid selfish fault. erm... sorry ENTIRE generation? fuck off! i'm 19 and have been working since i was 13. i'm at uni now and so i get a grant and a student loan (surely you'll be wanting to get rid of these as well) but i certainly don't like in luxury. most of the money i get goes towards rent. without it i wouldn't be able to go to uni and neither would a lot of other people. it's the same with this. just cutting the money WON'T work because it'll end up hurting too many people who need to support. there has to be a different way to work it because there are too many people exploiting the system but just cutting it off from everyone isn't the right way. Fucking hell, chill out!!!!! I didnt mean every single persom born in the last 10 years, it was just a figure of speech. And with regards to students, if less money was wasted on spongers who don't want to work, more could be spent on grants, subsidies for students from low earning families who couldnt normally afford to go to uni to help them achive potential.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 8, 2010 20:24:58 GMT
sal alway gives it the single young parent and huddy always the hitler shit but the crux of the story is this www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=502766&in_page_id=2it was done to death on here a few months ago (single mums are a problem both in money and values) but it these scumbags that need sorting and what the minister was talking about however tory plans to limiy total benefits for a family to 26k a year is a good start yorkshire despite what these fucking socialist say it is an absolute disgrace that you would be better off separating from your wife and being a single dad labour have truly fucked up the priorities in this country
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Oct 8, 2010 20:28:51 GMT
Working class people attack other working class people while ruling class people watch and rub their hands with glee.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2010 20:30:18 GMT
Working class people attack other working class people while ruling class people watch and rub their hands with glee. Very true.....and some join the army.
|
|