Page 1 of 17 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 265

Thread: Benefit changes yay or nay?

  1. #1
    The Old Fox csgohan4's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Fox Hole
    Posts
    1,057
    Thanks
    172
    Thanked
    57 times in 52 posts
    • csgohan4's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 9 AC
      • CPU:
      • I7 4770K with Noctua-D15
      • Memory:
      • G SKILL 2400Mhz 8GB
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 840 Evo 500 GB| Seagate 1TB + 1.5TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 780 ACX
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX 860
      • Case:
      • HAF X with NF-S12B FLX, TY-140, X4 Coolermaster Megaflow 200mm and Demciflex Dust Flters
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 24inch LCD W2468L
      • Internet:
      • Sky Fibre Unlimited with Asus DSL N66U

    Benefit changes yay or nay?

    BBC today ran an article here that the new archbishop has condemed the changes to the lower than expected rise in Benefits and the resulting effect on child poverty potentially.

    I just wonder do we all have a 'DUTY' to help others in poverty indirectly through benefits? I am sure it would be far more efficient to help them through well established charities rather than by Government hand outs?

    Or would you advocate a larger rise in benefits and potentially more tax on middle/ higher income earners to fund these changes ? or even those in poverty are not immune from times of recession and must share the pain every one is in?

    Personally I am more of a fan of benefit stamps, benefits that are used for it's original purpose, for the essentials for those in poverty i.e food, clothes, children's stationary and books e,t,c
    Trust Profile HEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards

    'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'

  2. #2
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,748
    Thanks
    1,787
    Thanked
    3,285 times in 2,647 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    Quote Originally Posted by csgohan4 View Post
    I just wonder do we all have a 'DUTY' to help others in poverty indirectly through benefits?
    Yes, it's part of the definition of a civilised society - the recognition that anyone can have a positive impact on society even if they're not in a position to support themselves financially through work, through no fault of their own.

  3. #3
    The Old Fox csgohan4's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Fox Hole
    Posts
    1,057
    Thanks
    172
    Thanked
    57 times in 52 posts
    • csgohan4's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 9 AC
      • CPU:
      • I7 4770K with Noctua-D15
      • Memory:
      • G SKILL 2400Mhz 8GB
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 840 Evo 500 GB| Seagate 1TB + 1.5TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 780 ACX
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX 860
      • Case:
      • HAF X with NF-S12B FLX, TY-140, X4 Coolermaster Megaflow 200mm and Demciflex Dust Flters
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 24inch LCD W2468L
      • Internet:
      • Sky Fibre Unlimited with Asus DSL N66U

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    Yes, it's part of the definition of a civilised society - the recognition that anyone can have a positive impact on society even if they're not in a position to support themselves financially through work, through no fault of their own.
    But having it enforced and having no say in what our 'Donations' from Tax form in providing help is completely different dont you think? I would rather give money to a homeless charity to provide hot meals to them than give them money directly for fear of use for the wrong reasons e.g drugs e.t.c, or maybe give them food stamps would be much more pertinent
    Trust Profile HEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards

    'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'

  4. #4
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,748
    Thanks
    1,787
    Thanked
    3,285 times in 2,647 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    The reason we have a central tax and redistribution system is precisely to enable us all to help contribute to valuable things even if we aren't aware or disagree what benefit it brings to us as individuals. What happens if people en mass decide that they will only support cute kitten charities and there isn't enough money to enable people who can't work to live a standard of life we would expect in our country? Choice of how to spend money is part of what we consider acceptable living. Take that away and you're no better off than a slave.

    The situation with drugs is even more complicated - benefits aren't enough to be spent on them as they are, so most addicts have to steal to get hold of them anyway. Food vouchers wouldn't likely have any effect on that. If anything, if the impact on wider society is your primary concern you should be giving addicts enough money to get drugs (or the drugs directly) so that you reduce the effects of them stealing etc. to get hold of the drugs.

  5. #5
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,435
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked
    1,639 times in 1,304 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    Quote Originally Posted by csgohan4 View Post
    But having it enforced and having no say in what our 'Donations' from Tax form in providing help is completely different dont you think? I would rather give money to a homeless charity to provide hot meals to them than give them money directly for fear of use for the wrong reasons e.g drugs e.t.c, or maybe give them food stamps would be much more pertinent
    That was the system in the 1800s, and it relied heavily on the people at the top having a moral duty to help out those less fortunate. As for how successful that would be now... I'm sceptical. As for how successful it was then... you've got to ask why it was changed - and the answer is, because it didn't work. There are vast numbers of people now earn very good salaries compared to the median, but are still determined that they don't get enough and they're struggling. A couple of surveys on here have made that extremely clear. Everybody looks up a rung to see who ought to be contributing, and before you know it, nobody is.

    You also have to bear in mind that in the 1800s MPs and local landowners tended to fund a lot of local charitable causes to help out the poor, because they had the wealth to do so, which is no longer the case.

  6. #6
    The Old Fox csgohan4's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Fox Hole
    Posts
    1,057
    Thanks
    172
    Thanked
    57 times in 52 posts
    • csgohan4's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 9 AC
      • CPU:
      • I7 4770K with Noctua-D15
      • Memory:
      • G SKILL 2400Mhz 8GB
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 840 Evo 500 GB| Seagate 1TB + 1.5TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 780 ACX
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX 860
      • Case:
      • HAF X with NF-S12B FLX, TY-140, X4 Coolermaster Megaflow 200mm and Demciflex Dust Flters
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 24inch LCD W2468L
      • Internet:
      • Sky Fibre Unlimited with Asus DSL N66U

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    I feel the benefit system is a one size fits all which is wrong, it should be case by case. Those out of work by choice should be punished more than those who are not able to find a job, disabled physcially/ mentally to do work for e.g.

    The old comments of I get more on benefits than working still wont go away, I wonder why...

    Work should pay not benefits and not aspiring to better ones self
    Trust Profile HEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards

    'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'

  7. #7
    Account closed at user request
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Elephant watch camp
    Posts
    2,150
    Thanks
    56
    Thanked
    115 times in 103 posts
    • wasabi's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B85M-G43
      • CPU:
      • i3-4130
      • Memory:
      • 8 gig DDR3 Crucial Rendition 1333 - cheap!
      • Storage:
      • 128 gig Agility 3, 240GB Corsair Force 3
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Zotac GTX 750Ti
      • PSU:
      • Silver Power SP-S460FL
      • Case:
      • Lian Li T60 testbanch
      • Operating System:
      • Win7 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • First F301GD Live
      • Internet:
      • Virgin cable 100 meg

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    The whole child poverty thing is leftie misdirection. I live on the edge of a council estate and a large percentage don't spend the money on the kids. Instead they spend it on a Subaru, booze, fags, lottery tickets (lots of them), Sky package, mobile contracts, big TV. Meanwhile the kids are abandoned to run bout like impoverished feral creatures.

    Better would be to make benefits tied to compulsory contraception. If you can't afford kids you should save up till you can rather than dump the problem on everyone else.

    I think there is a very mild social responsibility for an absolute bare minimum of care, but it is massively too generous at the moment. Thus we have millions of Poles here doing low paid jobs that Brits should be doing but won't. I don't think charities can really fill the gap, although state handouts should be perceived in the same way - i.e. you're living off someone else's money.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    points down
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    467
    Thanked
    132 times in 111 posts

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    Quote Originally Posted by wasabi View Post
    The whole child poverty thing is leftie misdirection. I live on the edge of a council estate and a large percentage don't spend the money on the kids. Instead they spend it on a Subaru, booze, fags, lottery tickets (lots of them), Sky package, mobile contracts, big TV. Meanwhile the kids are abandoned to run bout like impoverished feral creatures.

    Better would be to make benefits tied to compulsory contraception. If you can't afford kids you should save up till you can rather than dump the problem on everyone else.
    If they cant support it there should be an abortion option , they shouldnt be allowed to destroy another humans life, like their own.

    m

  9. #9
    The Old Fox csgohan4's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Fox Hole
    Posts
    1,057
    Thanks
    172
    Thanked
    57 times in 52 posts
    • csgohan4's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 9 AC
      • CPU:
      • I7 4770K with Noctua-D15
      • Memory:
      • G SKILL 2400Mhz 8GB
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 840 Evo 500 GB| Seagate 1TB + 1.5TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 780 ACX
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX 860
      • Case:
      • HAF X with NF-S12B FLX, TY-140, X4 Coolermaster Megaflow 200mm and Demciflex Dust Flters
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 24inch LCD W2468L
      • Internet:
      • Sky Fibre Unlimited with Asus DSL N66U

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    It starts at the top with politicians making an example which unfortunately doesn't happen and the often greed culture that envelopes our society today. Greed is good in a way but the direction in which to approach is different and can be done morally.

    You look at the culture in South East Asia as an example. China for example has citizens who grew up poor on farms and detest the kind of hard life and in wanting to have more money they want to better themselves, go get an education and go to the urban cities to get a decent well paid and respectable job. Of course that leads to other issues brought by Greed, the money at any cost attitude with the Baby milk scandal a few years back and the lack of empathy with another's suffering i.e a 2 year girl after being run over by a truck was ignored by 18 passer's By, despite crying in pain and bleeding on the road.

    Singapore has a run or die culture. If you don't hit the ground early on, your stuck behind forever. Although more extreme end of the spectrum where kids spend their summers going to extra classes and tutition, not to catch up but to get ahead of the competition and get the grades needed.

    UK on the other hand is on the other end of the spectrum whereby freedom and the Laissez-faire culture means we sometimes don't make the right choices. The government tries to educate us but then the citizens cry big brother and interfering in their lives and hence politcally correct statements are often not backed up or strong enough.

    So that leaves unfortunately Council Estates with sterotypes which have not gone away for the last 20 odd years. Benefit receiver who are sterotyped. I am sure there are many people with clearly legitimate reasons to be on benefit. However the very few that spoil it/ abuse the system are growing in number.

    Sure the Government might introduce caps or reducing housing benefit, Ala social cleansing, that uses a hammer to squash a bug, totally unncessary and over the top when they the nation's top academics who can surely work out a solution.

    Oh wait if there is a solution, those receiving benefits and are leaving the kids to suffer while they are enjoying nice holidays, Subaru's and Sky TV will all complain in Masses and then Labour/ Lib Dems or UKIP will also jump on the bandwagon and say they will support them, making the endless cycle move on with no good outcome.

    Unfortunately Policiticans only get voted on topics which are hot and get the most votes, not neccassary good for the country. It's a shame really and is a weakness of the democratic system here in the U.K with an often poor turn out which often makes matters worse and skews the votes. Often those that complain the most will vote maybe i.e benefit scroungers who want more or continue their scrounging.

    Lets vote for the Raving Looney Party... but it won't make an ouce of difference
    Last edited by csgohan4; 10-03-2013 at 05:36 PM. Reason: Grammar Fail lol
    Trust Profile HEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards

    'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    points down
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    467
    Thanked
    132 times in 111 posts

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    If they want money for sex then legalize prostitution - simple...

    Re badge it and have it as a legtimate service ( therapy for disabled etc ) or regular folk.

    m
    Last edited by peterb; 10-03-2013 at 08:48 PM. Reason: Swear filter

  11. #11
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,748
    Thanks
    1,787
    Thanked
    3,285 times in 2,647 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    Quote Originally Posted by csgohan4 View Post
    I feel the benefit system is a one size fits all which is wrong, it should be case by case. Those out of work by choice should be punished more than those who are not able to find a job, disabled physcially/ mentally to do work for e.g.
    That's the case now. It's not one size fits all.

    The old comments of I get more on benefits than working still wont go away, I wonder why...
    Because people are selfish and indignant and would rather 10 people go without food than 1 person get a free lunch. Far better to have one person get a free lunch if it means that 10 others who would otherwise starve get some food.

  12. Received thanks from:

    sammyc (14-03-2013)

  13. #12
    The Old Fox csgohan4's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Fox Hole
    Posts
    1,057
    Thanks
    172
    Thanked
    57 times in 52 posts
    • csgohan4's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 9 AC
      • CPU:
      • I7 4770K with Noctua-D15
      • Memory:
      • G SKILL 2400Mhz 8GB
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 840 Evo 500 GB| Seagate 1TB + 1.5TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 780 ACX
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX 860
      • Case:
      • HAF X with NF-S12B FLX, TY-140, X4 Coolermaster Megaflow 200mm and Demciflex Dust Flters
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 24inch LCD W2468L
      • Internet:
      • Sky Fibre Unlimited with Asus DSL N66U

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    Quote Originally Posted by melon View Post
    If they want to money for sex then legalize prostitution - simple...

    Re badge it and have it as a legtimate service ( therapy for disabled etc ) or regular folk.

    m
    Legalise is one thing, but then you need to standardise it so the consumers don't get sexually transmitted illnesses as result of renting a product.
    Last edited by peterb; 10-03-2013 at 08:49 PM. Reason: Language
    Trust Profile HEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards

    'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'

  14. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    106
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked
    23 times in 13 posts

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    What are benefits supposed to do, their duty? To us benefits are supposed to ensure the survival of people. If you are unemployed then benefits pay for your house, healthcare, and food. If you do not earn enough income, then eligibility for income support kicks in (as well as other forms of welfare), and you are effectively subsidised labour. You get paid a wage that is insufficient to live on, and instead of dying, you survive and can also have offspring.

    Here comes the kicker.

    Benefits ensure the continuation of the oversupply of low-skilled labour. If the government did not ensure the survival of people who would have been unable to support themselves independently, they would have died. If such people died then we would eventually face a massive shortage of labour, because the market by itself did not provide such people with enough money to live on by themselves.

    Now, what happens when a commodity becomes scarce? The price goes up. Businesses start to compete for a dwindling number of workers, and therefore start to offer more money to try and entice people into their jobs.

    Need proof? Look at the problems faced after the Black Plague by the government, namely how to control the increasing wages of the peasantry.

    From that bastion of knowledge Wikipedia:

    The great population loss brought economic changes based on increased social mobility, as depopulation further eroded the peasants' already weakened obligations to remain on their traditional holdings. In the wake of the drastic population decline brought on by the plague, authorities in Western Europe worked to maintain social order through instituting wage controls.[19] These governmental controls were set in place to ensure that workers received the same salary post-plague as they had before the onslaught of the Black Death.[19] Within England, for example, the Ordinance of Labourers, created in 1349, and the Statute of Labourers, created in 1351, restricted both wage increases and the relocation of workers.[20] If workers attempted to leave their current post, employers were given the right to have them imprisoned.[20] The Statute was strictly enforced in some areas. For example, 7,556 people in the county of Essex were fined for deviating from the Statute in 1352.[21] However, despite examples such as Essex, the Statute quickly proved to be difficult to enforce due to the scarcity of labour.
    In Western Europe, the sudden shortage of cheap labour provided an incentive for landlords to compete for peasants with wages and freedoms, an innovation that, some argue[weasel words], represents the roots of capitalism
    , and the resulting social upheaval "caused" the Renaissance, and even the Reformation. In many ways the Black Death and its aftermath improved the situation of surviving peasants, notably by the end of the 15th century.

    In Western Europe, labourers gained more power and were more in demand because of the shortage of labour. In gaining more power, workers following the Black Death often moved away from annual contracts in favour of taking on successive temporary jobs that offered higher wages.[22] Workers such as servants now had the opportunity to leave their current employment to seek better-paying, more attractive positions in areas previously off limits to them.[22] Another positive aspect of the period was that there was more fertile land available to the population; however, the benefits would not be fully realized until 1470, nearly 120 years later, when overall population levels finally began to rise again. In England, the higher wages for workers combined with sinking prices on grain products led to a problematic economic situation for the gentry. As a result they started to show an increased interest for offices like justice of the peace, sheriff and member of parliament. The gentry took advantage of their new positions and a more systematic corruption than before spread. A result of this was that the gentry as a group became highly disliked by commoners in general.[23]
    Essentially I am trying to argue that in our attempts to be "compassionate" and prevent people from dying, we are only reinforcing the conditions which allow them to be exploited, namely the overcrowded labour market.

    Sorry if this is hard to stomach, but if you would like to contradict me, then please try not to say that if I say what we really need is a reduction in the population then I should lead by example, because that is really not a good debate.
    Last edited by Zerox; 10-03-2013 at 06:16 PM.

  15. #14
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,748
    Thanks
    1,787
    Thanked
    3,285 times in 2,647 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    Yeah, I don't agree Zerox. Your reasoning puts undue (IMHO) emphasis on the value of making money above all else. I put forward the case that in reality there are many more contributions one can make to society than wage earning - child rearing, supporting others, carers, artists, musicians, philosophers.. I could go on.

  16. Received thanks from:

    Zerox (10-03-2013)

  17. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    points down
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    467
    Thanked
    132 times in 111 posts

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    Quote Originally Posted by csgohan4 View Post
    Legalise is one thing, but then you need to standardise it so the consumers don't get sexually transmitted illnesses as result of renting a product.
    Sure , make it clean and respectable via good PR - NLP etc

    Make it something " healing " ( both ways ) and then when they retire they can become nuns

    m
    Last edited by peterb; 10-03-2013 at 08:50 PM. Reason: Languagr

  18. #16
    The Old Fox csgohan4's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Fox Hole
    Posts
    1,057
    Thanks
    172
    Thanked
    57 times in 52 posts
    • csgohan4's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 9 AC
      • CPU:
      • I7 4770K with Noctua-D15
      • Memory:
      • G SKILL 2400Mhz 8GB
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 840 Evo 500 GB| Seagate 1TB + 1.5TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 780 ACX
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX 860
      • Case:
      • HAF X with NF-S12B FLX, TY-140, X4 Coolermaster Megaflow 200mm and Demciflex Dust Flters
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 24inch LCD W2468L
      • Internet:
      • Sky Fibre Unlimited with Asus DSL N66U

    Re: Benefit changes yay or nay?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zerox View Post
    Essentially I am trying to argue that in our attempts to be "compassionate" and prevent people from dying, we are only reinforcing the conditions which allow them to be exploited, namely the overcrowded labour market.

    Sorry if this is hard to stomach, but if you would like to contradict me, then please try not to say that if I say what we really need is a reduction in the population then I should lead by example, because that is really not a good debate.
    Essentially survival of the fittest no longer applies as those unable to survive get a helping hand and so they should, but at the same time allowing people to abuse it as well
    Trust Profile HEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards

    'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'

Page 1 of 17 123411 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •