# David Cameron on latest cuts!



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Ain't that the truth!:thumbdown::thumbdown:*


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

Kinnock and missus £180,000 a year pension + Expenses from House of Lords

Prescott £1,500,000 pension deal + Expenses from House of Lords

Blair and Brown not sure exactly,but a wacking great pension+ expenses

They're all stinking with it,not just the Tory mob.

"In it together" my bum.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

The anti robin hood!!!!


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

All very true!

I never thought id say this BUT i was quite taken aback when i actually agreed with everything that has been said about people on long term benefits. IMO i think they should be cut considerably after 6months, nothing riles me more than my oh getting up at stupid o'clock in the morning to support his family and all around us people are tucked up inbed till dinner time living the life of bloody riley!
I nearly wet myself with laughter yesterday when someone who i know has been on long term benefits declared she was off to spend her 'hard earned money!'


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

harley bear said:


> All very true!
> 
> I never thought id say this BUT i was quite taken aback when i actually agreed with everything that has been said about people on long term benefits. IMO i think they should be cut considerably after 6months, nothing riles me more than my oh getting up at stupid o'clock in the morning to support his family and all around us people are tucked up inbed till dinner time living the life of bloody riley!
> I nearly wet myself with laughter yesterday when someone who i know has been on long term benefits declared she was off to spend her 'hard earned money!'


*He has gone way over the top with the benefits. I'm all for sorting out the cheats,but he is hitting the most vulnerable.He has to be the worst prime minister this country has ever had.
Every time he opens his big mouth,its to say he is going to cut from the poorest.HELLO! its about time he hit his rich buddies.*


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *He has gone way over the top with the benefits. I'm all for sorting out the cheats,but he is hitting the most vulnerable.He has to be the worst prime minister this country has ever had.
> Every time he opens his big mouth,its to say he is going to cut from the poorest.HELLO! its about time he hit his rich buddies.*


Oh im all for taxing the rich, imo they should be the first hit but the benefit system needs a complete over haul, so many people are using it as a wage and its not..a benefit should be basic, for essentials not **** and booze and wide screen tv's etc.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *He has gone way over the top with the benefits. I'm all for sorting out the cheats,but he is hitting the most vulnerable.He has to be the worst prime minister this country has ever had.
> Every time he opens his big mouth,its to say he is going to cut from the poorest.HELLO! its about time he hit his rich buddies.*


Nothing really new Jan, I remember Thatcher she lost me my first house,no time for any of them, there all in it to feather there own nests.I think last week proved it with what one of them said they do think we are just a load of plebs


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

suewhite said:


> Nothing really new Jan, I remember Thatcher she lost me my first house,no time for any of them, there all in it to feather there own nests.I think last week proved it with what one of them said they do think we are just a load of plebs


*I remember all too well how many people under the Thatcher government lost their homes.Such a sad time.
As for the "pleb" thing, i think you'll find the minister was calling a copper a pleb..(which he probably was)..*


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

I think him and his buddies need to take a cut first. I agree that the benefit system needs to be sorted out but hitting the most vulnerable is totally wrong. These ATOS assessments are ridiculous and they are essentially killing people. I know people do cheat the system but genuinely ill people are being penalized too. 

The one huge issue I have is people that have loads of kids just to stay on benefits, planning the next one to coincide with the guidelines, I know a few people like that and its not right that they have hundreds of pounds a week for it. 

They need to stop handing so much cash out and start using a different system where food tokens and the like are provided. This will ensure that it can't all go on **** and booze. After all, the benefit system is meant to provide necessities not luxuries.

Fact is immigration is a huge problem too and costing the country millions.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

poohdog said:


> Kinnock and missus £180,000 a year pension + Expenses from House of Lords
> 
> Prescott £1,500,000 pension deal + Expenses from House of Lords
> 
> ...


What about the doctor who works 60-80 hours a week and gives themselves a heart attack at 40 due to the stress of work but continues until retirement age so they can provide for their family even after they are dead.

You can point out those people who abuse the system at the lower end of the system not as easily as they are not famous. The sitcom "Bread" always springs to mind. Those who abuse the system are the ones most likely to know how to get everything they can. Those who don't abuse it and genuinely need it are the ones most likely to suffer. The 50year old who is made redundant having worked all his life (paid taxes), unlikely to get a new job but doesn't have a clue about benefits.. How do you support people like him without opening the door to abuse?

What's your solution? Simply tax the doctor so it's not worth it to work? You may look at is as black and white but it is not. High wages are often stupid and high wages should be taxed and tax loopholes closed but across the board what are the solutions?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goldstar said:


> I think him and his buddies need to take a cut first. I agree that the benefit system needs to be sorted out but hitting the most vulnerable is totally wrong. These ATOS assessments are ridiculous and they are essentially killing people. I know people do cheat the system but genuinely ill people are being penalized too.
> 
> The one huge issue I have is people that have loads of kids just to stay on benefits, planning the next one to coincide with the guidelines, I know a few people like that and its not right that they have hundreds of pounds a week for it.
> 
> ...


*I don't think i would like to see a token system in place as its too demeaning.
The system does need a good shake up,but most people on benefits are there through no fault of their own.imo*

ETA this was on the telly last week i think it was.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19809100


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

This will hit those who have chosen to remain on benefits so I have no problem with it. If we insist on taxing our high earners with a 50% rate, then it's about time those who take the most out while putting nothing in for years on end, paid their fair share too.

People on benefits had more than a 5% increase in their income last year - how many working people got that?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

WriterC said:


> This will hit those who have chosen to remain on benefits so I have no problem with it. If we insist on taxing our high earners with a 50% rate, then it's about time those who take the most out while putting nothing in for years on end, paid their fair share too.
> 
> People on benefits had more than a 5% increase in their income last year - how many working people got that?


*And the rate of people committing suicide is rising.*


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *And the rate of people committing suicide is rising.*


And falling.

Are you actually trying to draw a link between suicide rates and benefit cuts? Because if so, that's so easily disproven, I'd probably feel bad about doing it.


----------



## Kirkland (Aug 28, 2012)

I think we all have to remember that every system no matter how well thought out will always have a certain degree of abuse. Making it too tough may mean that many who need certain benefits will suffer eg People on disability benefits we have all heard the stories of people being passed 'fit' for work when they clearly are not.

That situation has come about from the governments desire to reduce the deficit (even though it's not working) in any means possible and the fact that there are some that abuse disability allowance and that has been publicised extensively by newspapers.

Sadly for many it is human nature to take advantage of things. I once asked a bunch of people if you could get £1 million pounds from committing fraud with a guarantee that you wouldn't get caught would you do it.... Everyone said yes. Same is true with benefits many think they won't get caught so don't really think they are doing anything wrong even if it is morally wrong. Same is true with tax evaders they think that because they are getting away with it they are ''winning".

A lot won't look at the consequences to society because a lot don't care eg someone who cheats the benefits system means that less money is available for use in public services and also means the system has to be tightened which would impact those who really need it. Tax evaders are no different evading tax means cuts to public services etc but they don't really think about that.

Yeah I have a very gloomy Hobbesian view of the world and human nature


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 what is your workable solution for those on benefit to make sure those who really deserve it, get it?


----------



## foxiesummer (Feb 4, 2009)

Iv'e heard that a foreigner working over here for a year can claim for up to three children living back in his homeland. Guess what, they all have three children. Obviously no checks are made.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

foxiesummer said:


> Iv'e heard that a foreigner working over here for a year can claim for up to three children living back in his homeland. Guess what, they all have three children. Obviously no checks are made.


I've heard that Big Bird spends his evenings reenacting scenes from 50 Shades of Grey with Miss Piggy - but it doesn't make it true.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

WriterC said:


> And falling.
> 
> Are you actually trying to draw a link between suicide rates and benefit cuts? Because if so, that's so easily disproven, I'd probably feel bad about doing it.


*Like it or not,it is a FACT that some that were on benefits have commited suicide because they can't afford to live.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> JANICE199 what is your workable solution for those on benefit to make sure those who really deserve it, get it?


*For a start i would not have gotten some french firm in to do the "health" checks on people.
Secondly i would not assume everyone that came onto benefits were cheats.
The system did work,now why don't they ask themselves why it went wrong? And the same applies to out NHS.*


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *I don't think i would like to see a token system in place as its too demeaning.
> The system does need a good shake up,but most people on benefits are there through no fault of their own.imo*
> 
> ETA this was on the telly last week i think it was.
> BBC News - The middlemen selling &#039;health tourists&#039; access to GPs


Maybe not actual tokens but a card that's credited every week to use in conjuction with groceries, gas, electric, clothes etc. I know it would be a huge task and would take a lot of planning but the fact is, too much money is being paid out to people who are abusing the system and buying booze, **** and other luxuries instead of using it for actual necessities.
I'm not saying all people on long term benefits spend it all on booze etc but a lot do.

I know a woman who is in her thirties, never worked, 5 kids under 16 and getting over 400 a week. A lot of people who work full time don't get half that. Surely its not right that an average working man/woman can't afford a car (a few I know cant) yet people on long term benefits can.

I know that some people don't choose to be on benefits but a lot of people make a career out of it.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *Like it or not,it is a FACT that some that were on benefits have commited suicide because they can't afford to live.*


Actually, it's not a fact by any stretch of the imagination. It's one possible reason (of many, far more likely reasons) that's been used by certain pressure groups in an attempt to attack the Government.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *For a start i would not have gotten some french firm in to do the "health" checks on people.
> Secondly i would not assume everyone that came onto benefits were cheats.
> The system did work,now why don't they ask themselves why it went wrong? And the same applies to out NHS.*


So you're against foreign corporations being used in the UK? Who made your computer? Out of interest? Ever travelled by bus or train? Do you have a car? Do you see where I'm going with this?

I don't think anyone assumes everyone on benefits is a cheat, but the system certainly should in order to properly scrutinise all claims before they are awarded.

Which system are you referring to? There have been many.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goldstar said:


> Maybe not actual tokens but a card that's credited every week to use in conjuction with groceries, gas, electric, clothes etc. I know it would be a huge task and would take a lot of planning but the fact is, too much money is being paid out to people who are abusing the system and buying booze, **** and other luxuries instead of using it for actual necessities.
> I'm not saying all people on long term benefits spend it all on booze etc but a lot do.
> 
> I know a woman who is in her thirties, never worked, 5 kids under 16 and getting over 400 a week. A lot of people who work full time don't get half that. Surely its not right that an average working man/woman can't afford a car (a few I know cant) yet people on long term benefits can.
> ...


*I totally agree with you,when you say it isn't right that someone on benefit should be better off then someone who works.
But what should have happened,imo is they should have had a cap on benefits to start with.
Now when its too late,they are talking of not paying people that have more kids whilst on benefits.This should have been dealt with years ago.
Oh,and as for cars now there's another gripe of mine.My neighbour who can drink himself sensless whilst his wife goes to work,gets a car as he gets mobility. Another case,my hubby works with someone who's wife has MS,they have just got another brand new car.
I don't mind that the guy at work has been given a car,but why do they need a brand new one every 2 years? He works,so why can't he buy his own car?*


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

Food coupons is a big no no...ask any older people that lived through the war and rationing.A black market would appear overnight buying and selling coupons.
Those in the know didn't struggle for petrol or live on one egg a week during the war.

London gangster Frankie Frazer said the end of the war was a huge disappointment to him and his like....they made fortunes.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*


WriterC said:



Actually, it's not a fact by any stretch of the imagination. It's one possible reason (of many, far more likely reasons) that's been used by certain pressure groups in an attempt to attack the Government.

Click to expand...

 It is a fact,people have left suicide notes stating thats why they took their life.


WriterC said:



So you're against foreign corporations being used in the UK? Who made your computer? Out of interest? Ever travelled by bus or train? Do you have a car? Do you see where I'm going with this?

LMAO...why give the job to a foreign country when we could do with getting out own people into work?

Click to expand...

*


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *I totally agree with you,when you say it isn't right that someone on benefit should be better off then someone who works.
> But what should have happened,imo is they should have had a cap on benefits to start with.
> Now when its too late,they are talking of not paying people that have more kids whilst on benefits.This should have been dealt with years ago.
> Oh,and as for cars now there's another gripe of mine.My neighbour who can drink himself sensless whilst his wife goes to work,gets a car as he gets mobility. Another case,my hubby works with someone who's wife has MS,they have just got another brand new car.
> I don't mind that the guy at work has been given a car,but why do they need a brand new one every 2 years? He works,so why can't he buy his own car?*


So we can buy good quality cars that have been looked after at less than half the cost of new :laugh:

I see where your coming from...my OH's dad gets disability and he renovates houses! That guy disgusts me!


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *Like it or not,it is a FACT that some that were on benefits have commited suicide because they can't afford to live.*


People all walks of life have taken their lives, depression doesnt just hit the poor.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

I think that hitting people on disabilities so hard is wrong. There are a lot of genuinely ill people being declared fit for work when they are clearly not. ATOS is a load of cr*p IMO.
I have no idea how the disability cheats can be separated from genuine cases though.

The main problem at the moment is people having baby after baby to get extra benefits and evade work. The same woman I mentioned in my last post actually gets a set amount of free childcare for her youngest (18 months) even though she doesn't work her kids have all the new games when they come out, she buys dinner out almost every day, spends loads on expensive clothes. People working on low incomes can't afford all this so why should she be handed it on a plate? It just encourages her to have more kids. She's already planning on her 6th.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *It is a fact,people have left suicide notes stating thats why they took their life.*


*

If that's the case then you won't have a problem sharing links to where this has been reported to back up your claims.



JANICE199 said:



LMAO...why give the job to a foreign country when we could do with getting out own people into work?

Click to expand...

It's not been given to a foreign country - it's a company, not a country. Most companies aren't based in Britain. As to why they won the contract - because they were cheaper and could do it best is my bet. The contracts are put out to tender and the best offer wins - that's how it works. Also because protectionist policies don't work.

You seem to be under the impression that ATOS doesn't employ anyone in Britain - that's clearly not the case. It has 3000 British employees.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Waterlily said:


> People all walks of life have taken their lives, depression doesnt just hit the poor.


*I know,my father took his own life.
But it is a fact that since the shake up of out benefit system people have taken their life,because they can't afford to live.
And next year things will get even worse.*


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Goldstar said:


> I think that hitting people on disabilities so hard is wrong. There are a lot of genuinely ill people being declared fit for work when they are clearly not. ATOS is a load of cr*p IMO.
> I have no idea how the disability cheats can be separated from genuine cases though.
> 
> The main problem at the moment is people having baby after baby to get extra benefits and evade work. The same woman I mentioned in my last post actually gets a set amount of free childcare for her youngest (18 months) even though she doesn't work her kids have all the new games when they come out, she buys dinner out almost every day, spends loads on expensive clothes. People working on low incomes can't afford all this so why should she be handed it on a plate? It just encourages her to have more kids. She's already planning on her 6th.


Dont get me started on that! At our local school/childrens center there is a placement scheme for kids 2-3 for kids with parents on benefits..its called respite care ...wtf do people need these places if they are not working? You have kids bloody look after em!


----------



## CavalierOwner (Feb 5, 2012)

I try not to read about government stuff because I get angry! :lol: 

Tbh, how I see it is I and many other people work hard to bail other countries out of the sh!t and to support people who haven't worked for decades. I know plenty of people that have been on benefits since leaving school had 3-4 kids, have a 3 bed house with a huge garden, a holiday every year, sky tv and a big tv to watch it on......all paid for by us lovely workers, aren't we a generous bunch.  Why is it fair that they have the same or more luxuries than people that work hard when all they have contributed to society is their offspring?

As for 50% tax, regardless of how much a person earns taking 50% of anyone's money is harsh! I mean imagine working 40 hours in a week and getting paid for 20hours.  I understand that money has to come from somewhere but if we didn't hand money out willy-nilly then taxes wouldn't be so high! It doesn't encourage anyone to work when a huge chunk goes to the government to pay for people to sit at home all day.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

If we stop foreign aid we dont need drastic cuts, simple.

Charity starts at home.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Starlite said:


> If we stop foreign aid we dont need drastic cuts, simple.
> 
> Charity starts at home.


*That's too simple for the likes of Cameron.*


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *I know,my father took his own life.
> But it is a fact that since the shake up of out benefit system people have taken their life,because they can't afford to live.
> And next year things will get even worse.*


my bro took his as well, nothing to do with his income.... sorry to hear that btw jan xx
I just dont agree with that statement, people have always taken their lives, actors, musicians, news reporters, accountants, etc etc. These people would have done it anyway, prone to depression, and any trigger can top you off.. in western countrys even the poorest are far better off then people in other nations living in dumpsters, survival instinct doesnt die cos someone cant afford internet, or ****.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

harley bear said:


> Oh im all for taxing the rich, imo they should be the first hit but the benefit system needs a complete over haul, so many people are using it as a wage and its not..a benefit should be basic, for essentials not **** and booze and wide screen tv's etc.


So agree. I pay 40% tax and it p!sses me off to see my lazy ass neighbour claiming benefits and churning out kids, yet seem to buy more new things than we do.

And i personally believe we should all be taxed the same rate 20% of a huge salary is better than them trying to find a way to avoid it completely. Turn it around, you work hard and earn a good wage - would you be happy paying 50% tax because its over a certain amount? I bloody wouldn't (and aren't) - i work hard for my money!!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> For a start i would not have gotten some french firm in to do the "health" checks on people.
> Secondly i would not assume everyone that came onto benefits were cheats.
> The system did work,now why don't they ask themselves why it went wrong? And the same applies to out NHS.



 Probably put to open tender. Actual decision probably made on golf course  Doesn't matter which government was in power when looking at this sort of process. 
 So assume nobody is looking to cheat the system instead? Or only look at those with shifty eyes or wrong shaped ears. Why not assume only those of certain race? You have to start somewhere.. Where would you?
When did it work? It's always been a case that those who don't know the system and how to play it get penalized. 

Something to bear in mind is it is my opinion that people view far more as "essential" for life than they used to.

Another couple of questions:

When running a household do you always spend more than you get in?
With the money you get in do you force a short term gain knowing in the long run you'll get less?

That's the difficulty the government is in. No money and it's not sustainable. Taxing the rich more will mean less investment/jobs in the long term as well as money being taken out of the country no matter how hard you try to close tax loopholes. Ideal world tidy up the bureacracy. Unfortunately that's like asking a hydra to trim it's own heads and it doesn't matter which party is in power.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> People all walks of life have taken their lives, depression doesnt just hit the poor.


This is true, but some people with severe anxiety and worried about the degree to which these interviews go to have killed themselves before going to them or after being awarded zero points.


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

poohdog said:


> Food coupons is a big no no...ask any older people that lived through the war and rationing.A black market would appear overnight buying and selling coupons.
> Those in the know didn't struggle for petrol or live on one egg a week during the war.
> 
> London gangster Frankie Frazer said the end of the war was a huge disappointment to him and his like....they made fortunes.


Ok, so maybe tokens are a bad idea. A card that's credited weekly is a better idea. That way no one in supermarkets would know that the person in front is on benefits so it wouldn't be demeaning.

I'm not talking rations here. I'm talking about a decent amount for groceries which would obviously vary depending on family size. This will prevent some parents spending the money on themselves when its in place for the welfare of their children.

I hear loads of people from school who openly admit to spending their child benefit on nights out.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Starlite said:


> If we stop foreign aid we dont need drastic cuts, simple.
> 
> Charity starts at home.


What figures are you working from? Our foreign aid payments (which given, just how much we've taken and continue to take from the third world) are nothing in comparison to the debt we owe.

FYI - our foreign aid payments are less than 0.7% of our annual budget. Getting rid of that wouldn't even touch the sides.



CavalierOwner said:


> I try not to read about government stuff because I get angry! :lol:
> 
> Tbh, how I see it is I and many other people work hard to bail other countries out of the sh!t and to support people who haven't worked for decades. I know plenty of people that have been on benefits since leaving school had 3-4 kids, have a 3 bed house with a huge garden, a holiday every year, sky tv and a big tv to watch it on......all paid for by us lovely workers, aren't we a generous bunch.  Why is it fair that they have the same or more luxuries than people that work hard when all they have contributed to society is their offspring?
> 
> As for 50% tax, regardless of how much a person earns taking 50% of anyone's money is harsh! I mean imagine working 40 hours in a week and getting paid for 20hours.  I understand that money has to come from somewhere but if we didn't hand money out willy-nilly then taxes wouldn't be so high! It doesn't encourage anyone to work when a huge chunk goes to the government to pay for people to sit at home all day.


At the risk of being called 'nasty scum' (or whatever today's _phrase du jour_ is - our tax system doesn't work like that.

The vast majority of people in this country never pay back what they have taken out - even people earning £50k a year would take decades to pay back for everything the taxpayer has spent on them, and by the time they've done that, they then stop working and start taking again in the form of a pension.

So it's not as simplistic as you think.



JANICE199 said:


> *That's too simple for the likes of Cameron.*


Because it's wrong. Factually, logically, even emotionally - it's wrong.


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

A slight deviation...but if they want to save billions, stop poking our noses into other peoples wars.Protect our people with troops at our borders...not theirs.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *I know,my father took his own life.
> But it is a fact that since the shake up of out benefit system people have taken their life,because they can't afford to live.
> And next year things will get even worse.*


It's not a fact. If it were a fact, then how do you explain the fall in suicides in 2010 when the Coalition won the election?

Repeating something hundreds of times doesn't make it fact.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

harley bear said:


> Dont get me started on that! At our local school/childrens center there is a placement scheme for kids 2-3 for kids with parents on benefits..its called respite care ...wtf do people need these places if they are not working? You have kids bloody look after em!


What does the respite care cover HB? Are the children or parents sick/disabled?


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

WriterC said:


> *The vast majority *of people in this country never pay back what they have taken out - even people earning £50k a year would take decades to pay back for everything the taxpayer has spent on them, and by the time they've done that, they then stop working and start taking again in the form of a pension.


If that's the case where does the Treasury get the money from then?* Some *people in this country never pay back what they have taken out...not the vast majority.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Lavenderb said:


> What does the respite care cover HB? Are the children or parents sick/disabled?


In some cases maybe, its a case by case assessment IF you dont claim benefits....if you claim benefits you get funding full stop.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

poohdog said:


> If that's the case where does the Treasury get the money from then?* Some *people in this country never pay back what they have taken out...not the vast majority.


Income tax and NI are tiny parts of UK PLC's revenue. They don't even cover the benefits bill.

The Treasury gets something like 35% of its revenue from taxation - the rest comes from investments, borrowing etc.

When you total up the cost of running a country, the money spent on each individual for everything from the NHS to education, and then from child benefit to pensions - do you really think that many people are net contributors?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

poohdog said:


> Kinnock and missus £180,000 a year pension + Expenses from House of Lords
> 
> Prescott £1,500,000 pension deal + Expenses from House of Lords
> 
> ...


Arthur Scargill did well too

Arthur Scargill faces eviction from £1.5m luxury apartment as NUM launch legal action | Mail Online


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

BTW, did you know that Depression and Dyslexia are bona fide disabilities and validate claims for carers allowance and mobilty allowance (free car!) yippeeee


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

WriterC said:


> What figures are you working from? Our foreign aid payments (which given, just how much we've taken and continue to take from the third world) are nothing in comparison to the debt we owe.
> 
> FYI - our foreign aid payments are less than* 0.7% of our annual budget*. Getting rid of that wouldn't even touch the sides.
> 
> ...


i couldnt care less if it was 0.000001% the money should help the people of our homeland, not others.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

WriterC said:


> Because it's wrong. Factually, logically, even emotionally - it's wrong.


It's wrong to stop giving aid to countries with a greater wealth then our own?


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *For a start i would not have gotten some french firm in to do the "health" checks on people.
> Secondly i would not assume everyone that came onto benefits were cheats.
> The system did work,now why don't they ask themselves why it went wrong? And the same applies to out NHS.*


*Not to mention the fact that bloody ATOS is basically tricking the disabled out of their benefits.

Nurse makes heartfelt apology after Atos forced her to trick disabled people out of benefits - Daily Record
*


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> BTW, did you know that Depression and Dyslexia are bona fide disabilities and validate claims for carers allowance and mobilty allowance (free car!) yippeeee


I dont know where you got that from....a family member has active cancer and is on oxygen for another life threatening condition and yet they arent chucking a car at him.....mores the pity. To get motability (free car as you put it) you have to be awarded high rate mobility DLA.... you wont get that for dyslexia.......


----------



## cats galore (Jul 17, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> BTW, did you know that Depression and Dyslexia are bona fide disabilities and validate claims for carers allowance and mobilty allowance (free car!) yippeeee


my 20 year old son has dyslexia, dyspraxia, aspergers and has now been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. he does get dla for the first three conditions. if you live with someone with any of these conditions you would understand completely how devastating life can be for the whole family as well as the person with the conditions. he does not get a free car even though he spends most of his life on crutches and in agony. the mobility side of the allowance is because he struggles when out and about as in getting lost etc. to get the ''free car'' you have to have high mobility which even though he struggles to walk most days he does not qualify for. as for carers allowance try seeing how hard it is to care for a person with depression and/or dyslexia. my son used to sit in my arms sobbing and telling me how he wanted to die. these conditions cause depression and it is a geniune illness and a devasting one at that


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

And from the same highly reliable source:

Revealed: Drug dealers injecting their pet dogs with heroin to &#039;make them more aggressive&#039;&#039; - Daily Record


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

cats galore said:


> my 20 year old son has dyslexia, dyspraxia, aspergers and has now been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. he does get dla for the first three conditions. if you live with someone with any of these conditions you would understand completely how devastating life can be for the whole family as well as the person with the conditions. he does not get a free car even though he spends most of his life on crutches and in agony. the mobility side of the allowance is because he struggles when out and about as in getting lost etc. to get the ''free car'' you have to have high mobility which even though he struggles to walk most days he does not qualify for. as for carers allowance try seeing how hard it is to care for a person with depression and/or dyslexia. my son used to sit in my arms sobbing and telling me how he wanted to die. these conditions cause depression and it is a geniune illness and a devasting one at that


This is what I was trying to say.....the GP think the disabled have cars and benefits thrown at them willy nilly.....simply not true!


----------



## cats galore (Jul 17, 2012)

chichi said:


> This is what I was trying to say.....the GP think the disabled have cars and benefits thrown at them willy nilly.....simply not true!


exactly. my dad has been fighting cancer for over 3 years. my mom struggles to look after him (they are pensioners) but he has been told he will only get help when the doctor says he has less than 6 months to live.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> And from the same highly reliable source:
> 
> Revealed: Drug dealers injecting their pet dogs with heroin to 'make them more aggressive'' - Daily Record


*Choose to disbelieve all you want. I know for a fact that ATOS have no interest in a person's medical history (was told by them). I also know that the points that nurse raises are true FACT. I've been told by the benefits people that if you are able to attend those medical assessments, even if you can lift a cardboard box, you are deemed fit for work.*


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

cats galore said:


> exactly. my dad has been fighting cancer for over 3 years. my mom struggles to look after him (they are pensioners) but he has been told he will only get help when the doctor says he has less than 6 months to live.


That is disgraceful......makes you wonder what idiots sit and make up the rules and guidelines....clearly people that have never struggled with ill health.....


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Choose to disbelieve all you want. I know for a fact that ATOS have no interest in a person's medical history (was told by them). I also know that the points that nurse raises are true FACT. I've been told by the benefits people that if you are able to attend those medical assessments, even if you can lift a cardboard box, you are deemed fit for work.*


Absolutely......the secret filming on a documentary a few weeks back said as much....from the horses mouth so to speak. Its hard to believe that such a "pc" Country is allowing the sick and disabled to be treated so poorly.....very upsetting.


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

We could save a fair bit of money if they got rid of the people falling asleep grunting in the house of lords,how they can say they're an asset to the country I'll never know,if I fell asleep at work I'd be sacked.
Wages are from one extreme to the other in this country,no one working full time should be struggling and need to claim benefits. 
When a couple are 3500 overdrawn every month when their combined monthly wage is 5700 makes my heart bleed for them not,my husband works damn hard and hasn't had a pay rise for a few years and earn nothing like that but other people earning a descent income complain and some have had a wage rise. The divide between rich and poor is ridiculous always has been. Its time people were paid their worth. Its time scroungers worked.
Totally agree with what someone said earlier charity should begin at home plenty of people sleeping on the streets in this country,what about them.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Choose to disbelieve all you want. I know for a fact that ATOS have no interest in a person's medical history (was told by them). I also know that the points that nurse raises are true FACT. I've been told by the benefits people that if you are able to attend those medical assessments, even if you can lift a cardboard box, you are deemed fit for work.*


So how do you account for the majority of claimants who attend the assessments are not found fit for work? They shouldn't exist if what you say is true.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> It's wrong to top giving aid to countries with a greater wealth then our own?


I'm not surprised you're confused if you think that's what I've said.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

WriterC said:


> So how do you account for the majority of claimants who attend the assessments are not found fit for work? They shouldn't exist if what you say is true.


*Have you seen the statistics on the amount of people that have to appeal? Oh and for the record "More than 176,000 cases go to appeal tribunals each year, costing the taxpayer an additional £50 million"*


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Starlite said:


> i couldnt care less if it was 0.000001% the money should help the people of our homeland, not others.


Should it? Really? I find it hard to begrudge people access to clean water. Especially while we're using our resources to ensure that their current access is used for a select number of business interests and not the people of those countries.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Choose to disbelieve all you want. I know for a fact that ATOS have no interest in a person's medical history (was told by them). I also know that the points that nurse raises are true FACT. I've been told by the benefits people that if you are able to attend those medical assessments, even if you can lift a cardboard box, you are deemed fit for work.*


Like many people, I have a bad back, yet I have a job that requires me to do very physical work, including walking on ballast, the recommended maximum is 6m per day as the substrate shifts under foot making it very difficult. I also climb embankments and go up and down ladders to carry out my job. I don't think twice about giving it up, because it pays the bills, yet so many people, not all, but an awful bl**dy lot, claim benefits because they are unable to work, when they are as phsically fit as me.

I don't mind people who are genuinely unable to work not working, but those who can, even do some small form of work, that isn't physical, should do so and not rely on hand outs.

It was your choice of statistical data that I was calling into question btw, the daily record is not the most accurate rag to quote.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Have you seen the statistics on the amount of people that have to appeal? Oh and for the record "More than 176,000 cases go to appeal tribunals each year, costing the taxpayer an additional £50 million"*


I have, but that's not what I asked.

Putting your posts in big purple letters won't magically prevent someone from seeing the glaring inaccuracies contained within them. Nor will it prevent someone else from calling you out on them.

So... care to answer?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

The thing is with benefits, it's not really one way or the other.
I know someone personally who worked all his life until about 10 years ago when he was struck down with a mysterious illness that ruined his heart and is threatening to have him lose his legs 
Only a couple of years ago, when under threat of losing his toes, he was assessed as being fit for work  He tried to find work and went on the governments training scheme until he was put under so much pressure/stress that he had a massive heart attack 

On the other hand, I also personally know of two 20 something girls who have never worked in there lives 
They pump out a kid every few years to make sure they continue to get "paid" and have a house/flat provided. 
Oddly, they rarely have their kids, they end up with grandma while the little tarts go partying


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Like many people, I have a bad back, yet I have a job that requires me to do very physical work, including walking on ballast, the recommended maximum is 6m per day as the substrate shifts under foot making it very difficult. I also climb embankments and go up and down ladders to carry out my job. I don't think twice about giving it up, because it pays the bills, yet so many people, not all, but an awful bl**dy lot, claim benefits because they are unable to work, when they are as phsically fit as me.
> 
> I don't mind people who are genuinely unable to work not working, but those who can, even do some small form of work, that isn't physical, should do so and not rely on hand outs.
> 
> It was your choice of statistical data that I was calling into question btw, the daily record is not the most accurate rag to quote.


*No-one would or should dispute that people who ARE fit for work, should work. The problem is with ATOS's testing means. They have been given a target basically to get people off benefits and they are not testing them based on their disabilities as should be the case.*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

WriterC said:


> I have, but that's not what I asked.
> 
> Putting your posts in big purple letters won't magically prevent someone from seeing the glaring inaccuracies contained within them. Nor will it prevent someone else from calling you out on them.
> 
> So... care to answer?


*Firstly i always use this size and colour font, so your smart @rse comment was wasted.

Secondly, the situation with people being told they are not entitled to their proper benefits has been getting worse, no doubt with the government putting the pressure on ATOS. They can still claim a lower rate of benefit while waiting for their appeal to go through. But there has been a rise in people taking their own life while waiting for their appeals. Obviously there has also been deaths from people's ill health even though they were deemed fit for work. Considering the government deems terminally ill people with more than 6 months to live fit for work.

Thirdly all this information is easily accessible on the internet, i take it you haven't checked anything out for yourself?*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> The thing is with benefits, it's not really one way or the other.
> I know someone personally who worked all his life until about 10 years ago when he was struck down with a mysterious illness that ruined his heart and is threatening to have him lose his legs
> Only a couple of years ago, when under threat of losing his toes, he was assessed as being fit for work  He tried to find work and went on the governments training scheme until he was put under so much pressure/stress that he had a massive heart attack
> 
> ...


When I returned to my current job, just over a year ago, I was greeted by someone who'd been in the job for years, and was due to retire. He became ill suddenly, and died, after putting nearly 50 years into working on the railways.

I was working on a bridge in Huddersfield, up a hoist, when two young girls went wandering past, discussing their lives. They'd liked a bungalow they'd walked past and were saying how they'd like to live there, one girl said how she was going to get pregnant so she'd get a house and be able to have a life of her own. 



FREE SPIRIT said:


> *No-one would or should dispute that people who ARE fit for work, should work. The problem is with ATOS's testing means. They have been given a target basically to get people off benefits and they are not testing them based on their disabilities as should be the case.*


Given the criteria in the link to the article, I can't see what the problem is. If there is an appeal system, hopefully those who are judged truly unfit will be correctly categorised, in the meantime, the rest of those who have been claiming falsely will loose out.


----------



## click (Dec 23, 2011)

There are many genuine people struggling to pay bills and desperately looking for work.
Scivers there are a plenty, but where exactly are all these jobs that these malingerers should be made to apply for?


----------



## cats galore (Jul 17, 2012)

taken from an email by benefitsandwork.co.uk on the 13/06/12:

How sick do you need to be before the DWP will admit that you are probably never going to work again?

Very sick indeed if your kidneys are failing, as two recent decisions show with brutal clarity.

Paul Mickleburgh, one of the worlds longest surviving kidney dialysis patients is hooked up to a dialysis machine for five hours, three days a week. Hes also had cancer and pneumonia and suffers from spontaneous internal bleeding, brittle bones a twisted bowel and agonising joint pains as a result of his renal treatment. Hes had four failed kidney donations.

To top it all off, Paul has had 14 heart attacks in the last five years and believes his last attack was caused in part by the stress of trying to deal with the DWP. Sadly, patients with chronic kidney disease are actually more likely to die from associated heart disease than from kidney failure itself.

In spite of this, Paul has been placed in the work-related activity group,(external link) meaning that he is someone who is expected to return to the workplace in the reasonably near future. Pauls request for this dreadful decision to be looked at again came back with the same result  he should be moving towards a return to work.

We hope that Paul is now appealing . . . and that his heart will stand the stress.

More desperate still is the story of Karen Sherlock, a disability activist connected to the Spartacus campaign, whose kidneys were failing and who was waiting to be put on dialysis. In spite of her very serious condition, Karen was placed in the work-related activity group, meaning that her benefit would soon stop altogether because of the time limit on contribution-based ESA.

Karen spent many months fighting that decision. Two weeks ago she finally won her exhausting battle with the DWP and was placed in the support group. 

This week she died of a heart attack.

According to a fellow campaigner (external link):

She was terrified. Beside herself with fear. She lived her last months desperately scared that her family would not survive the onslaught it faced. . . . The system failed her and she spent her last precious moments in this world fighting. For herself, for her family and for others.

She was one of us. She was Spartacus. And now she's dead and she died in fear because the system failed her, because cruel men refused to listen and powerful men refused to act.

She spent her last months fighting for the "security" of £96 a week and the reassurance that it couldn't be taken away.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> When I returned to my current job, just over a year ago, I was greeted by someone who'd been in the job for years, and was due to retire. He became ill suddenly, and died, after putting nearly 50 years into working on the railways.
> 
> I was working on a bridge in Huddersfield, up a hoist, when two young girls went wandering past, discussing their lives. They'd liked a bungalow they'd walked past and were saying how they'd like to live there, one girl said how she was going to get pregnant so she'd get a house and be able to have a life of her own.
> 
> Given the criteria in the link to the article, I can't see what the problem is. If there is an appeal system, hopefully those who are judged truly unfit will be correctly categorised, in the meantime, the rest of those who have been claiming falsely will loose out.


The point is SL that if the system were fair.....all these appeals wouldnt be necessary
....ATOS are literally deeming anyone that can move and isnt terminally ill fit for work....regardless of medical evidence...i.e. Blood results that confirm diagnosis etc...they dont care. I imagine going through the appeals process is very upsetting for most claimants....it isnt fair in my mind.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

chichi said:


> The point is SL that if the system were fair.....all these appeals wouldnt be necessary
> ....ATOS are literally deeming anyone that can move and isnt terminally ill fit for work....regardless of medical evidence...i.e. Blood results that confirm diagnosis etc...they dont care. I imagine going through the appeals process is very upsetting for most claimants....it isnt fair in my mind.


They are literally not.

ATOS aren't there to confirm a diagnosis - they're carrying out work capability assessments.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

WriterC said:


> They are literally not.
> 
> ATOS aren't there to confirm a diagnosis - they're carrying out work capability assessments.


Work capability my eye.....the tests ask if you can pick up an empty cardboard box...answer a phone...speak...a person with a serious illness may be able to carry those tasks out in a 30 minute interrogation.....doesnt mean they can do a job of work however many days a week.....oh.....and by the way....where are these jobs....there are millions fit and able bodied cant get jobs.....what hope do those with long term illness have of securing permanent work???


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

WriterC said:


> Putting aside all the flailing - I take it from the above that you won't be answering the actual point?
> 
> Because until you do, there's not so much a discussion, as you saying clearly inaccurate things and then using non sequiturs like they're going out of fashion when called on it.


*Im seriously at a loss as to how you can claim things i have actually been told by the benefits people themselves are untrue? I can assure you there is nothing innacurate about them not being interested in people's medical records, it is a fact that on the form itself one of the things that determine how many if any points you get, are on whether you can lift a cardboard box, It is a fact that was told to me by the benefits people themselves that if you are fit enough to attend that assessment, then you are fit enough to work.*


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

chichi said:


> Work capability my eye.....the tests ask if you can pick up an empty cardboard box...answer a phone...speak...a person with a serious illness may be able to carry those tasks out in a 30 minute interrogation.....doesnt mean they can do a job of work however many days a week.....oh.....and by the way....where are these jobs....there are millions fit and able bodied cant get jobs.....what hope do those with long term illness have of securing permanent work???


Non sequiturs abound!

The assessments look at someone's capabilities - not their limitations. They are not saying that everyone who passes should be doing 40 hours of hard manual labour each week, though you'd probably believe that if you listened to all the sob stories.

The issue of whether there are enough jobs is separate to the issue of whether some people should be allowed to claim benefits for not being able to work, when they are able.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

chichi said:


> The point is SL that if the system were fair.....all these appeals wouldnt be necessary
> ....ATOS are literally deeming anyone that can move and isnt terminally ill fit for work....regardless of medical evidence...i.e. Blood results that confirm diagnosis etc...they dont care. I imagine going through the appeals process is very upsetting for most claimants....it isnt fair in my mind.


So is the system fair now?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> Im seriously at a loss as to how you can claim things i have actually been told by the benefits people themselves are untrue? I can assure you there is nothing innacurate about them not being interested in people's medical records, it is a fact that on the form itself one of the things that determine how many if any points you get, are on whether you can lift a cardboard box, It is a fact that was told to me by the benefits people themselves that if you are fit enough to attend that assessment, then you are fit enough to work.


Let's look at it another way - you said that everyone who attends the assessments are found fit for work?

That's clearly, demonstrably wrong by the simple fact that the majority of people who have an assessment are not found fit for work.

You cannot get away from the fact that you are wrong.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

WriterC said:


> Let's look at it another way - you said that everyone who attends the assessments are found fit for work?
> 
> That's clearly, demonstrably wrong by the simple fact that the majority of people who have an assessment are not found fit for work.
> 
> You cannot get away from the fact that you are wrong.


Where do you get your "facts" and can you share it with us?


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

WriterC said:


> Let's look at it another way - you said that everyone who attends the assessments are found fit for work?
> 
> That's clearly, demonstrably wrong by the simple fact that the majority of people who have an assessment are not found fit for work.
> 
> You cannot get away from the fact that you are wrong.


*
You clearly haven't read my posts. I never said 'EVERYONE is deemed fit to work'
Rather than go round in circles, i'll leave you to jumping to your own conclusions. I have better things to do than argue the toss with people just for the sake of it.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

WriterC said:


> They are literally not.
> 
> ATOS aren't there to confirm a diagnosis - they're carrying out work capability assessments.


*Excuse me,but can you in your own way,how somebody that isn't qualified,say whether or not someone is fit for work?
Atos do not want to see peoples medical records,why? Surely if they are judging whether or not someone is fit for work,all things should be taken into consideration.*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *
> You clearly haven't read my posts. I never said 'EVERYONE is deemed fit to work'
> Rather than go round in circles, i'll leave you to jumping to your own conclusions. I have better things to do than argue the toss with people just for the sake of it.*


Oh but it's such fun sometimes


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> You clearly haven't read my posts. I never said 'EVERYONE is deemed fit to work'
> Rather than go round in circles, i'll leave you to jumping to your own conclusions. I have better things to do than argue the toss with people just for the sake of it.


Yes, you did. See below.



FREE SPIRIT said:


> Choose to disbelieve all you want. I know for a fact that ATOS have no interest in a person's medical history (was told by them). I also know that the points that nurse raises are true FACT. *I've been told by the benefits people that if you are able to attend those medical assessments, even if you can lift a cardboard box, you are deemed fit for work*.


Are you denying making that post?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

rona said:


> Where do you get your "facts" and can you share it with us?


DWP statistics and reports. And of course I can. http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/as..._recommendations_post_appeal_WCA_outcomes.pdf

That covers the appeals outcome too.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

rona said:


> Oh but it's such fun sometimes


Isn't it just? And I can back my claims up with evidence. Shame the same can't be said for others.


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

WriterC said:


> Non sequiturs abound!


My secateurs are worn out...have you a spare pair?


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

WriterC said:


> Yes, you did. See below.
> 
> Are you denying making that post?


*Once again, not so smart are you? If I was told by the benefits people about MY situation "I've been told by the benefits people that if you are able to attend those medical assessments, even if you can lift a cardboard box, you are deemed fit for work.......How on earth does that imply EVERYONE?......Wake up!!!!*


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Choose to disbelieve all you want. I know for a fact that ATOS have no interest in a person's medical history (was told by them). I also know that the points that nurse raises are true FACT. I've been told by the benefits people that if you are able to attend those medical assessments, even if you can lift a cardboard box, you are deemed fit for work.*


3 times I was given an appointment to attend an ATOS meeting , and three times I told them on the phone and in writing that this wouldnt be possible because of my sociophobia ... did they listen , did they hell 
In the end my doctor had to write and tell them they were causing me more distress and depression and if they needed to see me then they would have to arrange a meeting at my house (still stressful meeting a stranger but not as bad as having to go out) which is what they did in the end

Trouble is a year and a half later im still awaiting a decision as to whether I am allowed any money after appealling 3 times (they insist me and Steve are a couple and not just sharing the house and because he loans me money to exist on they see that as further proof we are together)

to date im existing on my £20 a week DLA to cover all my needs , which as you can imagine is bloody near impossible  (one bonus is im losing weight cos I cant afford to eat , lol)


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> Once again, not so smart are you? If I was told by the benefits people about MY situation "I've been told by the benefits people that if you are able to attend those medical assessments, even if you can lift a cardboard box, you are deemed fit for work.......How on earth does that imply EVERYONE?......Wake up!!!!


It implies everyone who attends the assessment will be found fit for work. Which is clearly wrong.

And really, you really should stop with the personal insults because you're not nearly as good at it as you think you are.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Also the people of atos are not medically qualified and most are from the world of IT and just fill out a questionnaire without thought of each individual.

But hey if a man who has had, what 14 heart attacks? If he is fit for work with failing kidneys and internal bleeding then they are doing a great job!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Mese said:


> 3 times I was given an appointment to attend an ATOS meeting , and three times I told them on the phone and in writing that this wouldnt be possible because of my sociophobia ... did they listen , did they hell
> In the end my doctor had to write and tell them they were causing me more distress and depression and if they needed to see me then they would have to arrange a meeting at my house (still stressful meeting a stranger but not as bad as having to go out) which is what they did in the end
> 
> Trouble is a year and a half later im still awaiting a decision as to whether I am allowed any money after appealling 3 times (they insist me and Steve are a couple and not just sharing the house and because he loans me money to exist on they see that as further proof we are together)
> ...


*I feel for you i honestly do.I honestly wish someone could give an honest answer as to why this government are hell bent on inflicting so much hardship on our most vunerable.(sp)*


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

The problem is that the Government have taken the decisions....advice....professional opinion away from doctors and consultants and have given the powers of decision making on whether people are fit to work to ATOS staff.....some of whom are not appropriately qualified to understand the implications of complex illnesses and disabilities. Why train our specialists for years and then basically tell them their opinion is irrelevant by ignoring medical evidence on the work capability assessments....doesnt make sense.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

WriterC said:


> It implies everyone who attends the assessment will be found fit for work. Which is clearly wrong.
> 
> And really, you really should stop with the personal insults because you're not nearly as good at it as you think you are.


*I'm sure someone on their death bed could lift a cardboard box,but in your opinion does that deem them fit for work?*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

Mese said:


> 3 times I was given an appointment to attend an ATOS meeting , and three times I told them on the phone and in writing that this wouldnt be possible because of my sociophobia ... did they listen , did they hell
> In the end my doctor had to write and tell them they were causing me more distress and depression and if they needed to see me then they would have to arrange a meeting at my house (still stressful meeting a stranger but not as bad as having to go out) which is what they did in the end
> 
> Trouble is a year and a half later im still awaiting a decision as to whether I am allowed any money after appealling 3 times (they insist me and Steve are a couple and not just sharing the house and because he loans me money to exist on they see that as further proof we are together)
> ...


*Im so sorry to hear about your situation. Believe me your story is becoming more common and it's heartbreaking. £20 a week is disgraceful. 
For what it's worth, there are people fighting your cause and others like you. I know that isn't much help to you at the moment.*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

People &#8211; stop, take a breath, think.

You are all falling into the trap the government has set for you.

Cameron speaks about cutting benefits and at the same time tells you it&#8217;s because he wants to stop benefit cheats. B*******s! He is cutting benefits to save money. Whatever system is in place, whatever system they replace the present system with, the cheats will find a way to manipulate the system and the genuine cases will suffer &#8211; exactly as it is now, but worse because there will be less money to go around.

Do you think Cameron doesn&#8217;t know this? Of course he does. But while ever he can get you all incensed and blaming the benefit cheats, he is diverting attention from the real problem: the fact that the monetary policy of this mickey-mouse government is not working.

This country will never get back on its feet by taking money from the needy. Despite all the cuts and redundancy so far during this coalition, we are still in a deep depression. The only way forward is to create work. History has shown that this is the way forward: Roosevelt did it with his &#8220;New Deal&#8221; that got the USA out of the great depression. Just think about it for a minute. 

If we create work &#8211; say, (to use Ed Miliband&#8217;s example) use government money to pay people to build houses, we start an upwards spiral. We create jobs for some people. Those people will have more money to spend. They will need to be more goods manufactured for them to spend their money on. That will create more manufacturing jobs. That will mean more people with more money to spend, more people needing more things, more things needing manufacturing, more manufacturing jobs &#8211; and so it goes on. The economy grows. All these people in work will be paying taxes. The country earns more money and can begin to pay off its debts and divert some money to the truly needy. And all done without taking money from the people who need it most.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

WriterC said:


> It implies everyone who attends the assessment will be found fit for work. Which is clearly wrong.
> 
> And really, you really should stop with the personal insults because you're not nearly as good at it as you think you are.


*It implies nothing but the facts. If you choose to read more into it or wish to bicker with people for the sake of it, the problem lays with you, not my post.*


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *I feel for you i honestly do.I honestly wish someone could give an honest answer as to why this government are hell bent on inflicting so much hardship on out most vunerable.(sp)*


The only thing that truly annoys me is when I hear of yet another foreigner being given everything while im sat here like a lemon scrimping every penny I can 
I havent claimed the dole for over 30 years (I did briefly after leaving school) , I was proud of working and raising my Daughter , and now when I need the help im basically told im lying and made to jump through numerous hoops , its frustrating


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

WriterC said:


> Non sequiturs abound!
> 
> The assessments look at someone's capabilities - not their limitations. They are not saying that everyone who passes should be doing 40 hours of hard manual labour each week, though you'd probably believe that if you listened to all the sob stories.
> 
> The issue of whether there are enough jobs is separate to the issue of whether some people should be allowed to claim benefits for not being able to work, when they are able.


Could you explain how *you* know a sob story from a real person's account of a painful disabling condition which affects them to the point they cannot work. How are you qualified to recognise the 'sob stories' from the real cases?


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> People  stop, take a breath, think.
> 
> You are all falling into the trap the government has set for you.
> 
> ...


*As always, the voice of reason.  
Great post and i totally agree.*


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

How can you pluck a figure like that out of the air? It makes no sense!

There is no way of knowing that the £10 billion is used on those who are not in need.

Yet there are no plans on tax avoidance and evasion which would rake in over three times that which is being cut from the poor.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Mese said:


> The only thing that truly annoys me is when I hear of yet another foreigner being given everything while im sat here like a lemon scrimping every penny I can
> I havent claimed the dole for over 30 years (I did briefly after leaving school) , I was proud of working and raising my Daughter , and now when I need the help im basically told im lying and made to jump through numerous hoops , its frustrating


*You see, your background should of at least been a clue that you weren't out for a quick and easy few quid.
But as i said earlier this government want to take as much and as quick as they can.But only from those that have the least.*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> People  stop, take a breath, think.
> 
> You are all falling into the trap the government has set for you.
> 
> ...


So no government implements cuts to save money except a conservative coalition government, the rest do it out of the goodness of their hearts?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> Could you explain how *you* know a sob story from a real person's account of a painful disabling condition which affects them to the point they cannot work. How are you qualified to recognise the 'sob stories' from the real cases?


When I've been sat in court listening to them and when they've been found guilty. It's been a while since I've done any court reporting but I can still read.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Mese said:


> The only thing that truly annoys me is when I hear of yet another foreigner being given everything while im sat here like a lemon scrimping every penny I can
> I havent claimed the dole for over 30 years (I did briefly after leaving school) , I was proud of working and raising my Daughter , and now when I need the help im basically told im lying and made to jump through numerous hoops , its frustrating


It is so unfair what you are facing but too familiar......I cannot understand for the life of me how Cameron is getting away with it.

I trust you have been to citizens advice etc....it just doesnt seem possible that you are being expected to live on 20 per week.....its nonsense....a good diet is the very basics for health......how can you get that and live on 20 pw for goodness sake!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Lavenderb said:


> Could you explain how *you* know a sob story from a real person's account of a painful disabling condition which affects them to the point they cannot work. How are you qualified to recognise the 'sob stories' from the real cases?


*The same way as the people that work for atos..just another job.*


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *I'm sure someone on their death bed could lift a cardboard box,but in your opinion does that deem them fit for work?*


No. But I've not said that. I've not said that anyone who attends the assessment will be found fit for work because it's clearly untrue.

I do really wish that people would get out of their respective camps and look objectively at the facts, because I'm really struggling to have an ounce of sympathy for people who refuse to accept the provable facts.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

WriterC said:


> When I've been sat in court listening to them and when they've been found guilty. It's been a while since I've done any court reporting but I can still read.


But that doesn't qualify you to know the truth, only what you have heard. So you believe everything you hear and you believe that every judge and court in the land makes the right judgement?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

FREE SPIRIT said:


> It implies nothing but the facts. If you choose to read more into it or wish to bicker with people for the sake of it, the problem lays with you, not my post.


Repeating something doesn't make it a fact. Especially when anyone with a functioning mind can see that it's clearly wrong.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So no government implements cuts to save money except a conservative coalition government, the rest do it out of the goodness of their hearts?


*Nobody has said we don't need cuts.But why pick on the poorest in our society?
I see we can still give to India even though they don't want out money.
Britain WILL keep giving millions in aid to India even though they don¿t want it | Mail Online*


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> But that doesn't qualify you to know the truth, only what you have heard. So you believe everything you hear and you believe that every judge and court in the land makes the right judgement?


So even when they've admitted the charges? Admitted fraudulently obtaining benefits - that's still a big conspiracy to you?

And again with the non sequiturs!


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

WriterC said:


> So even when they've admitted the charges? Admitted fraudulently obtaining benefits - that's still a big conspiracy to you?
> 
> And again with the non sequiturs!


How many court cases involving accusations against benefit cheats did you attend?


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

chichi said:


> It is so unfair what you are facing but too familiar......I cannot understand for the life of me how Cameron is getting away with it.
> 
> I trust you have been to citizens advice etc....it just doesnt seem possible that you are being expected to live on 20 per week.....its nonsense....a good diet is the very basics for health......how can you get that and live on 20 pw for goodness sake!


Steve helps me out and pays all expenses for the dogs so its not as dire as it could be , but the more he helps me the more they see it as us being a couple :thumbdown: 
my lawyer is fighting this argument of theirs in my appeal , the last one I can make ... after that my only option is for Steve to move out and rent me this house (he owns it) and for me to make a new claim ... this option scares me more than I can say cos it will isolate me even more than I am now and gawd alone knows how I will deal with housing benefits etc when I cant leave the house


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> Nobody has said we don't need cuts.But why pick on the poorest in our society?


Firstly - so obviously not the poorest in our society.

Secondly - the benefits bill isn't covered by how much the workers pay in income tax. Workers who have had their pay cut, benefits removed or reduced and are seeing their costs soaring - what are you going to cut from them? They're not getting anything. By their very nature, the cuts have to come from the people who are getting the most - people on benefits.

You've still not answered why you think it's right that people on benefits got an above 5% increase in income last year - how many working people got that, do you think?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So no government implements cuts to save money except a conservative coalition government, the rest do it out of the goodness of their hearts?


Now where did I say that? :hand:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Nobody has said we don't need cuts.But why pick on the poorest in our society?
> I see we can still give to India even though they don't want out money.
> Britain WILL keep giving millions in aid to India even though they don¿t want it | Mail Online*


The poorest in our society? You've having a laugh? Some of the folks claiming benefits earn more than I do with a full time job which risks my life regularly, and a business! They are not picking on people with below a certain point income from benefits, they are reviewing the benefits that all people receive, that's the difference!!

We are one of the leading nations in giving money to under developed and developing countries, and considering our past, very well deserved. I won't dispute there are times I don't agree with it, but picking on one story out of a multitude where the UK provide funds to such countries hardly makes it an unworthy scheme. In exactly the same way, and I apologise for anyone going through hardship with the new benefit scheme, but if it stops the benefit frauds it is a good thing, if it penalises those in genuine need it is a bad thing and needs reviewing, hence the appeals procedure.

I have been through some truly sh*t times in life over the past few years, and can fully understand the apprehension some folks feel with conditions that leave them feeling vulnerable, but if overall this system shakes things up for the better then it has to be better overall. Or would people just rather leave things as the last government left them, the Labour government that is, who seemed to sign a blank cheque for everyone except those that actually needed it


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Lavenderb said:


> How many court cases involving accusations against benefit cheats did you attend?


Not that many - I hated court reporting with a fiery passion - maybe 25? Probably a lot more, a lot are sped through and frankly, the court sheet is a godsend (excuse the pun). Mostly it was assaults, thefts, drunk driving etc.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Now where did I say that? :hand:


You don't have to say something to imply it


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Apparently, they have said that no cuts will affect pensioners.

Unless you know different


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

WriterC said:


> Firstly - so obviously not the poorest in our society.
> 
> Secondly - the benefits bill isn't covered by how much the workers pay in income tax. Workers who have had their pay cut, benefits removed or reduced and are seeing their costs soaring - what are you going to cut from them? They're not getting anything. By their very nature, the cuts have to come from the people who are getting the most - people on benefits.
> 
> You've still not answered why you think it's right that people on benefits got an above 5% increase in income last year - how many working people got that, do you think?


*Firstly i don't agree with you when you say they are not targeting the poorest,i believe they are.
Secondly my husband is the only wage earner in this house and he's on less than min. wage.( although he does get bonus)I/we don't moan about what tax ect he has to pay,coz imo thats life.
We never have anything we can't pay for.
Now how many people work and say how hard up they are,but have everything new,and are in debt?
You see,i can look at this who's really hard up and those that " think" they are hard up,with an open mind.*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

And while we're at it with the posting of non biased, factual links, I'd like to draw peoples' attention to the following, which will really negate any arguments as we are about to be invaded by aliens!

ALIEN SPACESHIPS TO ATTACK EARTH IN NOVEMBER 2012! | Weekly World News


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

WriterC said:


> Firstly - so obviously not the poorest in our society.
> 
> Secondly - the benefits bill isn't covered by how much the workers pay in income tax. Workers who have had their pay cut, benefits removed or reduced and are seeing their costs soaring - what are you going to cut from them? They're not getting anything. By their very nature, the cuts have to come from the people who are getting the most - people on benefits.
> 
> You've still not answered why you think it's right that people on benefits got an above 5% increase in income last year - how many working people got that, do you think?


didnt you say you worked with help the Aged or did I pick that up wrong, why were you in court?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You don't have to say something to imply it


Nope - wasn't even implying it. 

Was just pointing out that Cameron wants us all to argue about benefit cheats to in order to divert our attention from the real problem.

Whatever government is in power, whatever system is in place, there will be people who manage to cheat the system. The only way we will stop benefit cheats is to stop benefits altogether - and before you read any implication into that  I am not advocating doing that, not even impying it! I cannot condone any system where we do not look after the genuinely needy.

And the only way to make money and get our country back on its feet is to increase our manufacturing base. And that goes for whatever government is in power.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Nope - wasn't even implying it.
> 
> *Was just pointing out that Cameron wants us all to argue about benefit cheats to in order to divert our attention from the real problem.*
> 
> ...


So either you know David Cameron in person and he's told you this, or you are implying this?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The poorest in our society? You've having a laugh? Some of the folks claiming benefits earn more than I do with a full time job which risks my life regularly, and a business! They are not picking on people with below a certain point income from benefits, they are reviewing the benefits that all people receive, that's the difference!!
> 
> We are one of the leading nations in giving money to under developed and developing countries, and considering our past, very well deserved. I won't dispute there are times I don't agree with it, but picking on one story out of a multitude where the UK provide funds to such countries hardly makes it an unworthy scheme. In exactly the same way, and I apologise for anyone going through hardship with the new benefit scheme, but if it stops the benefit frauds it is a good thing, if it penalises those in genuine need it is a bad thing and needs reviewing, hence the appeals procedure.
> 
> I have been through some truly sh*t times in life over the past few years, and can fully understand the apprehension some folks feel with conditions that leave them feeling vulnerable, but if overall this system shakes things up for the better then it has to be better overall. Or would people just rather leave things as the last government left them, the Labour government that is, who seemed to sign a blank cheque for everyone except those that actually needed it


*Surely if it was an honest review it would be fair.But it isn't...*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Surely if it was an honest review it would be fair.But it isn't...*


Why is it not fair? Is there any evidence that it isn't fair overall? Other than a tabloid report that is?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Starlite said:


> didnt you say you worked with help the Aged or did I pick that up wrong, why were you in court?


I volunteer with Age UK.

I'm a journalist.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Why is it not fair? Is there any evidence that it isn't fair overall? Other than a tabloid report that is?


*You don't need a tabloid report.This thread alone has shown it is unfair.*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *You don't need a tabloid report.This thread alone has shown it is unfair.*


So because some members of petforums feel unfairly treated, the system overall is unfair?


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

WriterC said:


> I volunteer with Age UK.
> 
> I'm a journalist.


ah right, that makes more sense now


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

There will always be people abusing benefits and welfare systems. Governments should aim to reduce the amount of abuse. It should however be assumed that a certain percentage of people will abuse the system, whatever is done.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DogLover1981 said:


> There will always be people abusing benefits and welfare systems. Governments should aim to reduce the amount of abuse. It should however be assumed that a certain percentage of people will abuse the system, whatever is done.


As a taxpayer I don't accept that, I do not mind contributing towards a system that provides benefits for those in genuine need, but why the chuff should I risk my life for someone who is in as good a physical and mental condition as I am, so they can sit on their @rse for a living?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So either you know David Cameron in person and he's told you this, or you are implying this?


Neither.

I can't have been implying it because I stated it openly.

And it is not necessary to know Cameron in person to understand that he is employing diversionary tactics. All that is needed is observation and a little intelligence. Some people believe everything they are spoonfed by the people in power and some people question it. I belong to the latter group. How about you?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So because some members of petforums feel unfairly treated, the system overall is unfair?


*Well if you only choose to look at posts on a petforum for evidence then you can't be that bothered.You have the www at your fingertips.*


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

I read an article earlier this year. I forget where it was but I will try to find it. It stated that tax evasion costs the governments 15 times more than benefit fraud.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Neither.
> 
> I can't have been implying it because I stated it openly.
> 
> And it is not necessary to know Cameron in person to understand that he is employing diversionary tactics. All that is needed is observation and a little intelligence. Some people believe everything they are spoonfed by the people in power and some people question it. I belong to the latter group. How about you?


Come on, you posted your opinion of a situation based on what you know about it, that is implication, not fact. You are inferring something, which is the same thing.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

The first politician who says he will help hard working parents who have brought up hard working children gets my vote. I don't care at the moment what colour badge he wears.These are the ones who vote any way appeal to them, not those who habitually sign on and would not have time to vote between visits to the pub and the Job Center. 



I am sick of slogging my guts out, watching my kids slog away. I have been made redundant 3 times, twice this year and I could get sweet fa!! I am doing a p/t job earning the same hourly rate as in 1999, come up with something for the likes of me, red, blue, green I don't care just have some balls :incazzato:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Well if you only choose to look at posts on a petforum for evidence then you can't be that bothered.You have the www at your fingertips.*


So everyone who has time and access to a computer who bothers to complain about how they've been treated is a true statistical representative of the system? Hmmmm, I think your theory is flawed, google is your friend and all that.... perhaps wikipedia has the answer?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Phew!
mammoth read!
did I read that the world was going to end this year sometime in december?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DT said:


> Phew!
> mammoth read!
> did I read that the world was going to end this year sometime in december?


Could have been my factual link to alien invasion!! Maybe I should jack work in and go sign on for the next couple of months, just in case (and I'm not at all suggesting that's what every claimant is doing, just making fun of the system that allows some to do just that)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Come on, you posted your opinion of a situation based on what you know about it, that is implication, not fact. You are inferring something, which is the same thing.


I posted my opinion of a situation. So shoot me!

There was no inference of anything intended, and certainly not



Sleeping_Lion said:


> "So no government implements cuts to save money except a conservative coalition government, the rest do it out of the goodness of their hearts?"


That was all in your mind. As for implication, I still don't think that if you state something openly you are implying it


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

One idea he suggested was limiting the number of children in a family that should be supported on benefits.

I agree with this, 1, 2 maybe 3 but after that if you can't afford to look after yourself you should have, why should the tax payer have to help you bring up your kids.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> People  stop, take a breath, think.
> 
> You are all falling into the trap the government has set for you.
> 
> ...





Spellweaver said:


> I posted my opinion of a situation. So shoot me!
> 
> There was no inference of anything intended, and certainly not
> 
> That was all in your mind. As for implication, I still don't think that if you state something openly you are implying it


I ain't gonna shoot you, but I will show you that you infer something, you don't merely state opinion. See above, you state that Cameron is aiming to do something, that is inferring something, and so you are therefore implying something. If you want to ensure people don't confuse the two, perhaps start your sentence with, 'in my opinion' otherwise implication is inferred


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Lavenderb said:


> I read an article earlier this year. I forget where it was but I will try to find it. It stated that tax evasion costs the governments 15 times more than benefit fraud.


*On the telly now a program called smugglers.Cigs and tobacco smuggling cost this country £2 billion a year. Now if this country lowered the tax on our cigs. and tobacco people wouldn't need to smuggle and the government would get their tax.*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *On the telly now a program called smugglers.Cigs and tobacco smuggling cost this country £2 billion a year. Now if this country lowered the tax on our cigs. and tobacco people wouldn't need to smuggle and the government would get their tax.*


I'm all for banning smoking except in the homes of those who smoke I'm afraid. Nothing worse than walking behind someone smoking a ***. So no, don't agree with you on that one either, and yes I do smoke, but only good quality cigars, and only occasionally.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> As a taxpayer I don't accept that, I do not mind contributing towards a system that provides benefits for those in genuine need, but why the chuff should I risk my life for someone who is in as good a physical and mental condition as I am, so they can sit on their @rse for a living?


You might not accept it but it will continue to happen to some extent (and maybe a lesser extent) no matter what is done. It's just like people cheating paying taxes, politicians accepting bribes, kickbacks and the like.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I ain't gonna shoot you, but I will show you that you infer something, you don't merely state opinion. See above, you state that Cameron is aiming to do something, that is inferring something, and so you are therefore implying something. If you want to ensure people don't confuse the two, perhaps start your sentence with, 'in my opinion' otherwise implication is inferred


Ok, a little English lesson seems necessary.

If I _state_ that Cameron is aiming to do something, then I am not _inferring_ that he is aiming to do something; I am _stating_ that he is aiming to do something.

If I am _stating_ that Cameron is aiming to do something, then I am not i_mplying_ that he is aiming to do something; I am _stating_ that he is aiming to do something.

So no inference, no implication, just a straightforward statement of the facts as I see them, expressed as my opinion on a forum (because that is what people do on forums).


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Now! It as plain as the nose on your face that this country is up the creek!
We can all argue at to the reasons we believe this to be!

But its a fact that there are a growing number of the population are taking from the pot , Many of these people have never done a days work - nor have a days work in them! They see the benefits system as 'their right' This group need to be the first to have their benefits slashed!

Then, we have those that know the system and how it works! Forgive me here as my knowledge here is somewhat lacking, I am speaking of those who drop a child every couple of years to ensure adequate housing and also guarantees them from being made to return to work! then hey preto when its time to go back they drop antoher! This needs stopping.

Then we have the huge housing bill for private housing - how many times do we read of families being housed in luxury houses in london at the tax payers expense.

The NHS - how many procedures are carried out in the UK on patients that are not entitled to free care! EASY - do as spain do - make em pay upfront!

Incapacity whatever its called! There are a hell of a lot of people claiming this who can work! If you can sit infront of a computer screen and use a computer you can work! NO ONE wants to take it away from the genuinely ill and the people who are genuinely sick . But they need to sort the wheat from the chaff here!

Mobility allowance! the free car area! dont want to upset no one here - but why dont the governent have a pool of BASIC low priced cars - all the same low engine size preferably at the VERY LEAST made in the UK that are borrowed and returned for the next person. 

War - bring our boys home! leave it to the yanks!

Family allowance - This should go back as tax relief!

OAPs how the hell OAPs live on the basic pension this country pays if they have no savings is beyond me! I hear we pay one of the lowest in Europe!

Retirement - Dunno! they keep raising it, talk about wear the old ones out first! maybe they should cut it for them that want to stop and give the jobs to the younger generation.


The EU - again am lost on this! but I for one would vote to come out.

Fact! the countries shot - and cuts HAVE to be made - so whereever them cuts are made someone is going to be unhappy.

You can please some of the people some of the time most of the people most of the time but you will never please all of the people all of the time!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm all for banning smoking except in the homes of those who smoke I'm afraid. Nothing worse than walking behind someone smoking a ***. So no, don't agree with you on that one either, and yes I do smoke, but only good quality cigars, and only occasionally.


*I didn't mention a ban on smoking.I was trying to save this country some money.*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DogLover1981 said:


> You might not accept it but it will continue to happen to some extant no matter what is done. It's just like people cheating paying taxes, politicians accepting bribes, kickbacks and the like.


I don't accept any of that, you can lie down and let them walk all over you, but I choose to vote for a system that doesn't accept people who are able to work, but choose to flout the system and live off benefits.

Would be interested to hear your take on the current political situation in the states, looks very mixed from over here!


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

He should stop giving away money to countries that are nothing to do with us for a start, that would save a packet. Let them fend for themselves, britain isn't a bank for the whole world to dip into.

However, remember labour whose motto was give, give, give, spend, spend,spend? Well it wasn't a bottomless pit after all, it now needs replacing, and the only way the next person along can do that is to cut as much as possible. Blair and Brown's mess, Cameron's just clearing up.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm all for banning smoking except in the homes of those who smoke I'm afraid. Nothing worse than walking behind someone smoking a ***. So no, don't agree with you on that one either, and yes I do smoke, but only good quality cigars, and only occasionally.


Best not, being an ex smoker I love walking behind someone smoking!
Hate stale baccy though!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Ok, a little English lesson seems necessary.
> 
> If I _state_ that Cameron is aiming to do something, then I am not _inferring_ that he is aiming to do something; I am _stating_ that he is aiming to do something.
> 
> ...


Picked on the wrong person there hun, English Lit 

You 'state' That Cameron is aiming to do something, do you know for a fact Cameron is aiming to do something? Are you best buds, do you text him regular or tweet? If not, your statement infers something, little English lesson for you there hun  To infer something, implies it, so you are making an implication.

Just so you're not in any doubt, a statement can imply something, and can therefore be said to be an implication! Funny old world!!


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Picked on the wrong person there hun, English Lit
> 
> You 'state' That Cameron is aiming to do something, do you know for a fact Cameron is aiming to do something? Are you best buds, do you text him regular or tweet? If not, your statement infers something, little English lesson for you there hun  To infer something, implies it, so you are making an implication.


SL youre getting a bit technical for this time of night.....making my brain burt.....lol


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> And it is not necessary to know Cameron in person to understand that he is employing diversionary tactics.


Isn't that the job description of a politician? Doesn't matter what country it is in either.

I know people don't like answering any difficult questions but I will continue to ask some... How do we reduce the countries debt without making cuts... Penalize those bringing money in isn't the way to do so as you reduce the workforce, not encourage it.

How much did the last labour government "borrow" and how were they planning on paying it back? It's not for our generation, we've messed it up totally (uk not unique) but for future generations we need to get things under control.



Spellweaver said:


> If we create work  say, (to use Ed Milibands example) use government money to pay people to build houses, we start an upwards spiral.


Nice thinking... seem to remember hearing Ireland needs/will need a bailout because of building too many houses. Who will pay for them? Where are they going to be built?

Bring back Screaming Lord Sutch. At least you were not supposed to take him seriously as a politician.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Just to say my grandfather had a mobility car when he was dying of lung cancer. 

You are allowed certain cars for free. They take the mobility money from you though.

They are not flash cars they are basic cars. You can upgrade but you pay the difference yourself. When you are done with them, they go back too.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Bring back Screaming Lord Sutch. At least you were not supposed to take him seriously as a politician.


We've got Boris now 

A much better bet


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

Suggestion why don't the politicians take a cut in wages, move instead of having a second home after all its what they tell Joe public to do,cut back on all those unnecessary lunches,big cars,I could go on.
Lead by example and then perhaps Joe public would not mind having to cut back quite so much


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Just to say my grandfather had a mobility car when he was dying of lung cancer.
> 
> You are allowed certain cars for free. They take the mobility money from you though.
> 
> They are not flash cars they are basic cars. You can upgrade but you pay the difference yourself. When you are done with them, they go back too.


Really sorry to read of your father her obviously is in genuine need of one

BUT
Yep! someone I know has one, she just got a BRAND new one! Ford Focus, nice car!
moaned because she could not have the metalic paint finish without paying an extra £300
BUT! what really got my back up was the return cheque she got for £250 for returning the old one in good condition with low milage!

wonder if they have to pay tax on that!

The reason she has a car by the way is because she has sat on benefits for over 40 years! smoking and now has emphasenia


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I don't accept any of that, you can lie down and let them walk all over you, but I choose to vote for a system that doesn't accept people who are able to work, but choose to flout the system and live off benefits.


I'm not saying people should be walked all over. I'm saying it's been going for eons and I'm doubtful anything will completely eliminate cheating benefits. The other thing is that many people talk about issues like they are something new when it's been going on for ages and get all riled up.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Picked on the wrong person there hun, English Lit
> 
> You 'state' That Cameron is aiming to do something, do you know for a fact Cameron is aiming to do something? Are you best buds, do you text him regular or tweet? If not, your statement infers something, little English lesson for you there hun  To infer something, implies it, so you are making an implication.
> 
> Just so you're not in any doubt, a statement can imply something, and can therefore be said to be an implication! Funny old world!!


:lol: I'll take your English Lit and raise you a BA (1st class hons) in English Language and Philosophy  (You started it!)

A statement can imply and infer a lot of things, but it can neither imply nor infer *what it actually states*

For example, if I stated "the water is hot" I could be inferring or implying a lot of things -eg that hot water is nice, that hot water is not nice, that I wanted the water to be hot, that I didn't want the water to be hot etc etc etc - but what I would NOT be *implying or inferring* is that the water is hot. I would be *STATING* that.

So, in the same way, if I *state* something about Cameron I am not *implying or inferring* what I stated.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *On the telly now a program called smugglers.Cigs and tobacco smuggling cost this country £2 billion a year. Now if this country lowered the tax on our cigs. and tobacco people wouldn't need to smuggle and the government would get their tax.*


How much tax does get collected from tobacco? Even if it was a minimal amount of tax per pack smuggling would likely happen. Where's the break point to stop smuggling? You sound as if you know.

As for banning smoking one argument I have heard but no idea how true.. Smokers actually save money for the NHS in the long run. Whilst they need possible short term expensive care when ill, they generally do not need long term expensive medical or social care.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> People  stop, take a breath, think.
> 
> You are all falling into the trap the government has set for you.
> 
> ...


*This is the answer imo....
When i think of all the industry this country had,and look at us now.*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT (Jul 8, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> Just to say my grandfather had a mobility car when he was dying of lung cancer.
> 
> You are allowed certain cars for free. They take the mobility money from you though.
> 
> They are not flash cars they are basic cars. You can upgrade but you pay the difference yourself. When you are done with them, they go back too.


*I don't think anyone with a heart would begrudge genuine people the transport they are entitled to. *


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DogLover1981 said:


> I'm not saying people should be walked all over. I'm saying it's been going for eons and I'm doubtful anything will completely eliminate cheating benefits. The other thing is that many people talk about issues like they are something new when it's been going on for ages and get all riled up.


But they are new, people never used to rely on handouts as much as they do now, in the past. It was deemed as a last resort, yet these days, it seems like a first resort for many!


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Small, slow yearly cuts to spending and small yearly increases to taxes is better, especially when the economy isn't doing the greatest.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

DT said:


> Really sorry to read of your father her obviously is in genuine need of one
> 
> BUT
> Yep! someone I know has one, she just got a BRAND new one! Ford Focus, nice car!
> ...


Well that is a bad case.

My grandfather actually died a few months later but the car helped him a lot as my mother could get him to barts etc.

It is awful that some abuse it. I just thought i'd say it isn't always abused and it isn't flash cars, even though they are lovely, clearly.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> *This is the answer imo....
> When i think of all the industry this country had,and look at us now.*


I have to say, under the current government spend on the railway infrastructure has increased substantially, therefore increasing jobs, and hopefully increasing viability for our transport systems for the future, so yes, look at it now, biting the bullet for future generations!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I don't accept any of that, you can lie down and let them walk all over you, but I choose to vote for a system that doesn't accept people who are able to work, but choose to flout the system and live off benefits.
> 
> Would be interested to hear your take on the current political situation in the states, looks very mixed from over here!


The problem is now SL many are breed into it! The Parents have lived off the system, Now its there turn, then their childrens!

LEarning how to milk the system must be in their curruclum.
They'll be sitting O levels next!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I have to say, under the current government spend on the railway infrastructure has increased substantially, therefore increasing jobs, and hopefully increasing viability for our transport systems for the future, so yes, look at it now, biting the bullet for future generations!


yeah - just remind me again - how much has the government's u-turn over the recent Virgin West Coast line bid cost the taxpayer?


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> *This is the answer imo....
> When i think of all the industry this country had,and look at us now.*


This in a nutshell. We've given it all away to every Tom, Dick and Harry and now we have nothing. Trouble is those in power are still giving it away to every Tom, Dick and Harry.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> But they are new, people never used to rely on handouts as much as they do now, in the past. It was deemed as a last resort, yet these days, it seems like a first resort for many!


It's called the Jeremy Kyle generation:

Not everyone, but some think that is an actual way of working. I'm just surprised that when they hand out careers advice sheets in schools now, there isn't an option box marked 'dole'


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> This is the answer imo....
> When i think of all the industry this country had,and look at us now.


Question is why it was lost in the first place? A lot was people insisting on "their rights" instead of looking at how practical things were. Tradition can be taken too far and Britain is famous for it. You cannot compete with a lot of countries who have a really cheap workforce without offering something special. What do workers in the UK offer now and what can be done so they can offer more in the future?

I certainly wish I knew the answer.. I know politicians will try to convince you that they do, especially those not in power who'll promise the earth if it means they'll get elected. How long was labour in government with a clear mandate to do as they wanted? What was the result?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> yeah - just remind me again - how much has the government's u-turn over the recent Virgin West Coast line bid cost the taxpayer?


was it 55 million
?
and more to be thrown at it?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> How much tax does get collected from tobacco? Even if it was a minimal amount of tax per pack smuggling would likely happen. Where's the break point to stop smuggling? You sound as if you know.
> 
> As for banning smoking one argument I have heard but no idea how true.. Smokers actually save money for the NHS in the long run. Whilst they need possible short term expensive care when ill, they generally do not need long term expensive medical or social care.


*As far as i'm aware the tax us smokers pay on cigs./tobacco out weighs what it costs to treat smoke related illnesses.Although the anti smokers will disagree i'm sure.*


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I agree that some people cheat the ,benefit system, but i think all circumstances should be taken into consideration, 
As for the stopping housing benefit for under 25s, again all circumstances are different, Kids who leave school cant sign until they are 18,and if the parents are supposed to keep them what on, fresh air,?
If there are jobs available they should be made to take one, but not many around for that age
When my youngest left school they had to go on a youth training course, for £27 a week, that was stppoed too,
The EMA has been stopped for students so they lose interest in college
Pensioners have had the winter fuel allowance cut, which was a great help, all the wrong people penalised !!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Question is why it was lost in the first place? A lot was people insisting on "their rights" instead of looking at how practical things were. Tradition can be taken too far and Britain is famous for it. You cannot compete with a lot of countries who have a really cheap workforce without offering something special. What do workers in the UK offer now and what can be done so they can offer more in the future?
> 
> I certainly wish I knew the answer.. I know politicians will try to convince you that they do, especially those not in power who'll promise the earth if it means they'll get elected. How long was labour in government with a clear mandate to do as they wanted? What was the result?


*I believe people that fought for their rights in the work place were right to do so.I don't believe it was down to tradition but pride.
And after all their hard work,their jobs were taken from them.2 industries that spring to mind,were the coal miners and ship yards.
The british work force, imo. have nothing to be proud of these days because they lost their homes,their jobs,their communities and then their pride.*


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I have to admit I resent the generalisation that everyone 'on benefits' are all in the same situation. 
Nobody else in my family does, or has ever lived on benefits. My parents worked hard and raised my Borther and I well, but nobody can prepare a family for illness. When I was told my 'temporary illness' was a 'lifelong disability' it was liek a brick in the chest, I had to abandon all the ambitions I worked so hard for in school and college and seemingly became unemployable overnight .
My parents like to think that their hard working years and the tax they paid would contribute to the care of a disabled child, no doubt it would if I was visibly disabled 

As I've said before, there are no luxuries here (except Daisy), no holidays, no car, no gadgets (laptop is ancient, 21st birthday gift!), no kids and at the moment no flooring, cooker or heating!

Because of previous cuts I lost my part time job supported by a local charity and one by one, most of the support services around me are becoming overstretched and crumbling away thanks to the 'smooth faced one'. 

Think I'm going to have a cry now, I miss the life I planned


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Some economic troubles right now are being caused by globalization, IMO. It's easy to have cheap labor if you don't respect human rights, free speech and workplace safety. It was a huge mistake years ago to completely open trade with china and other places without requiring better human rights protections.

Why do I get the feeling China will be in same situation as the US and UK as far as debt and economic troubles in the future?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> yeah - just remind me again - how much has the government's u-turn over the recent Virgin West Coast line bid cost the taxpayer?


Not an awful lot in the grand scheme of things tbh, I don't agree with what happened over that bidding process, but my work has nothing to do with the Train Operating Companies or TOCs, my work involves built structures, I don't even have anything to do with the track, although I will report something that I view as unsafe. However, given the mistakes regarding the awarding of a contract to a TOC that wasn't justified, that still doesn't negate the fact that under the current government the railways structures and infrastructure are being updated at a greater rate than ever before in recent history and not before time!



JANICE199 said:


> *As far as i'm aware the tax us smokers pay on cigs./tobacco out weighs what it costs to treat smoke related illnesses.Although the anti smokers will disagree i'm sure.*


Keep telling yourself that, justifies every cig you light up. Of course, if no-one had to be treated for cancer (or illness related to smoking), there'd be no outlay, and therefore no need for income from tobacco companies!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I have to say, under the current government spend on the railway infrastructure has increased substantially, therefore increasing jobs, and hopefully increasing viability for our transport systems for the future, so yes, look at it now, biting the bullet for future generations!





Spellweaver said:


> yeah - just remind me again - how much has the government's u-turn over the recent Virgin West Coast line bid cost the taxpayer?





DT said:


> was it 55 million
> ?
> and more to be thrown at it?


Thanks DT - thought it was something like that (but I'm too tired to google!)

SL- hardly biting the bullet for the future generation, is it? More like stealing the bread out of their mouths!

Ah well, much as I'm enjoying this, I have to go to bed - up at 6.30 - an NHS worker with a 13 hour shift to do tomorrow (an NHS worker who hasn't had a pay rise for 3 years despite the rise in the cost of living and whose job may be on the line if this government continues on its merry way). Hey ho. It's a grand life if you don't weaken. Night night all!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Keep telling yourself that, justifies every cig you light up. Of course, if no-one had to be treated for cancer (or illness related to smoking), there'd be no outlay, and therefore no need for income from tobacco companies!


*lol I don't have to justify smoking,all the time my hubby earns a wage i will decide what it goes on.I think i still have that right.*


----------



## Luz (Jul 28, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: I'll take your English Lit and raise you a BA (1st class hons) in English Language and Philosophy  (You started it!)
> 
> A statement can imply and infer a lot of things, but it can neither imply nor infer *what it actually states*
> 
> ...


As someone who teaches English at GCSE - We teach that you saying that the water is hot is *implying* that the bather may scald his/her self.
The bather would* infer *from your warning that they should wait till thewater cools. I.E the speaker implies/ the listener infers. Or the writer implies/ the reader infers! 
As for all the Politics I dreaded the tories getting into power as I was young and poor during the Thatcher years. However I, as most people, would like to think that benefits go to the deserving and not those who 'work' the system!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Thanks DT - thought it was something like that (but I'm too tired to google!)
> 
> SL- hardly biting the bullet for the future generation, is it? More like stealing the bread out of their mouths!
> 
> Ah well, much as I'm enjoying this, I have to go to bed - up at 6.30 - an NHS worker with a 13 hour shift to do tomorrow (an NHS worker who hasn't had a pay rise for 3 years despite the rise in the cost of living and whose job may be on the line if this government continues on its merry way). Hey ho. It's a grand life if you don't weaken. Night night all!


So you'd rather the infrastructure was left to rot? Nothing was spent under the labour adminstration, and it is only now the mess is being sorted out. Never mind, at least you can to to bed after having learnt what imply means 

I'll be up at 5am btw, to walk the girls before getting out to work, to earn that thing called a salary.



JANICE199 said:


> *lol I don't have to justify smoking,all the time my hubby earns a wage i will decide what it goes on.I think i still have that right.*


You go for your indepent decision making!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

The 20th and now 21st Century have taken their tolls on this countries industry.

communication, air travel, tecnology to name but a few have all played a part

We can now get stuff quickly and cheaply from countries across the world, Countries that have advanced in the tecnical department whilst we have stood still.

We have also had to make room for china, who I believe have the fastest growing economy.

Just look at the world wide web alone - that has made on hell of an impact


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Keep telling yourself that, justifies every cig you light up. Of course, if no-one had to be treated for cancer (or illness related to smoking), there'd be no outlay, and therefore no need for income from tobacco companies!


Along with the alcoholics and drug users who get their habit topped up,the alcoholics get an allowance for their daily tipple,the drug users get their fix and the smokers .....pay for their own patches 
Perhaps the politicians should all kick their cigarette and alcohol consumption and I imagine a few partake in the illegal substances, should they not lead by example


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

skip said:


> Along with the alcoholics and drug users who get their habit topped up,the alcoholics get an allowance for their daily tipple,the drug users get their fix and the smokers .....pay for their own patches
> Perhaps the politicians should all kick their cigarette and alcohol consumption and I imagine a few partake in the illegal substances, should they not lead by example


I understand that if you join a government smoking cessation course that you can get patches, sprays lozengers whatever free!
That said I used champix and DID have to pay the prescription price for those and they would only issue a months supply as a time so had to pay four normal prescription costs.


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

DT said:


> I understand that if you join a government smoking cessation course that you can get patches, sprays lozengers whatever free!
> That said I used champix and DID have to pay the prescription price for those and they would only issue a months supply as a time so had to pay four normal prescription costs.


That's useful info for people to know I wasn't aware of that :thumbup:


----------



## Grace_Lily (Nov 28, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> BTW, did you know that Depression and Dyslexia are bona fide disabilities and validate claims for carers allowance and mobilty allowance (free car!) yippeeee


What on earth makes you think depression isn't a bona fide disability? Have you ever been in the dark, dark hole that is depression? Do you even know the definition of 'disability'? Jesus wept, the ignorance and stigma around mental health illness even today is shocking and disgusting. 

Now, about the cuts. I really don't know where to start except to say I voted Conservative at the election and never will again. There were promises of targeting benefit scroungers, yet the vulnerable and ill are being penalised. I agree totally that the benefit system needed a shake up but the genuine people are being left to suffer and that is unforgivable.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

skip said:


> That's useful info for people to know I wasn't aware of that :thumbup:


also you can do it by phone support, i never I chose to go in and blow in the bag so to speak


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Did you know some surgeries offer Slimming World Vouchers too!

Sorry off topic


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

northnsouth said:


> Did you know some surgeries offer Slimming World Vouchers too!
> 
> Sorry off topic


no i never, thank you, Im on a diet at the moment
x


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *He has gone way over the top with the benefits. I'm all for sorting out the cheats,but he is hitting the most vulnerable.He has to be the worst prime minister this country has ever had.
> Every time he opens his big mouth,its to say he is going to cut from the poorest.HELLO! its about time he hit his rich buddies.*


apologies if repeating as not read all the replies.

How would you get a fair system, so that only the genuinely deserving receive benefits? At the other end of the scale how would you pitch your taxation so that all the mega rich don't just banner off out of the country so that the tax man gets whatever percentage of nothing?

How do you feel that the poorest claim the most/contribute the least whereas the rich contribute the most/claim the least - if the balance isn't right they can afford to just go. Look at Michael Cain, he said on the radio not long ago that when the tax rate under labour went up to 80% he thought you are having a larf and left the country so we got 80% of nothing instead of say 40% of hundreds of thousands.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Heard on the late news tax credits are to be cut even more
Doesnt affect me, but not long since George Osborne cut them , and does affect working people with children especially
Although, when i was working there were no such thing as tax credits
Pensioner now, and a poor one


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

What's the uk industry now?

The money go round that's called banking 

The very same that caused half this trouble in the first place 

And how many politicians do you think have their fingers in that pie?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> apologies if repeating as not read all the replies.
> 
> How would you get a fair system, so that only the genuinely deserving receive benefits? At the other end of the scale how would you pitch your taxation so that all the mega rich don't just banner off out of the country so that the tax man gets whatever percentage of nothing?
> 
> How do you feel that the poorest claim the most/contribute the least whereas the rich contribute the most/claim the least - if the balance isn't right they can afford to just go. Look at Michael Cain, he said on the radio not long ago that when the tax rate under labour went up to 80% he thought you are having a larf and left the country so we got 80% of nothing instead of say 40% of hundreds of thousands.


*If we are ever going to get a fair system imo we need to start creating jobs.If there are jobs out there people would have no excuse to claim benefits they are not entitles to.
At the moment all we here is," there are jobs out there".That'simply not true.
And it doesn't help when you get people that will work for less than the min. wage.
I would not allow anyone from outside the uk to have any benifits,or use out NHS,as they do now.
Another thing i would like to see is,all money earnd from the national lottery would go into out NHS.I would stop all hand out to other countries until we are back on out feet.
As for the likes of pop stars and actors,i'm not sure about that one yet.*


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *t true.
> And it doesn't help when you get people that will work for less than the min. wage.
> I would not allow anyone from outside the uk to have any benifits,or use out NHS,as they do now.
> Another thing i would like to see is,all money earnd from the national lottery would go into out NHS.I would stop all hand out to other countries until we are back on out feet.
> .*


Agree on those points


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> If we are ever going to get a fair system imo we need to start creating jobs.


How? I've noticed people are great at overall comments (normally used by the opposition) but lack the detailed practical suggestions which could actually work.



> I would stop all hand out to other countries until we are back on out feet.


I'm pretty sure that there are lot of additional implications of this such as using it as a political foreign policy "tool" to prevent encroachment of another countries idealism (one example) or to retain a foothold for potential raw materials. Again not a black and white issue. Used to be merchants backed by military where necessary (empire), now other methods need to be used. I don't agree with say giving aid to a country which is able to fund it's own space program but would need to know more about the real reasoning behind things before making sweeping statements.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *If we are ever going to get a fair system imo we need to start creating jobs.*





Goblin said:


> How? I've noticed people are great at overall comments (normally used by the opposition) but lack the detailed practical suggestions which could actually work.


We do what Roosevelt did to get the USA out of the great depression. We use government money to create jobs. Roosevelt created jobs building roads because that was what was needed in the USA. We need more social housing. We use government money to pay people to build social houses (not private housing like the example in Ireland), and that starts an upwards spiral. As well as creating houses (and rent income for councils) it creates jobs for some people. Those people will have more money to spend. They will need to be more goods manufactured for them to spend their money on. That will create more manufacturing jobs. That will mean more people with more money to spend, more people needing more things, more things needing manufacturing, more manufacturing jobs  and so it goes on. The economy grows. All these people in work will be paying taxes. The country earns more money and can begin to pay off its debts and divert some money to the truly needy. It worked for the USA and it will work for us.

And as for where we get the government money to start it in the first place - we get the government to close the tax loopholes and use the billions of taxes that will raise to fund the project.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> How? I've noticed people are great at overall comments (normally used by the opposition) but lack the detailed practical suggestions which could actually work.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that there are lot of additional implications of this such as using it as a political foreign policy "tool" to prevent encroachment of another countries idealism (one example) or to retain a foothold for potential raw materials. Again not a black and white issue. Used to be merchants backed by military where necessary (empire), now other methods need to be used. I don't agree with say giving aid to a country which is able to fund it's own space program but would need to know more about the real reasoning behind things before making sweeping statements.


*Ok i'll ask you this.How did we get on our feet after the 2nd world war? We did it before and in my opinion we can do it again.
As for the opposition,i'm not for any particular party.But i hate this government.*


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> We do what Roosevelt did to get the USA out of the great depression. We use government money to create jobs. Roosevelt created jobs building roads because that was what was needed in the USA. We need more social housing. We use government money to pay people to build social houses (not private housing like the example in Ireland), and that starts an upwards spiral. As well as creating houses (and rent income for councils) it creates jobs for some people. Those people will have more money to spend. They will need to be more goods manufactured for them to spend their money on. That will create more manufacturing jobs. That will mean more people with more money to spend, more people needing more things, more things needing manufacturing, more manufacturing jobs - and so it goes on. The economy grows. All these people in work will be paying taxes. The country earns more money and can begin to pay off its debts and divert some money to the truly needy. It worked for the USA and it will work for us.
> 
> And as for where we get the government money to start it in the first place - we get the government to close the tax loopholes and use the billions of taxes that will raise to fund the project.


I agree..In the twenties and thirties this country was in a much bigger mess than it is now.We haven't thousands of people dying through lack of food or queuing for a bowl of soup in the streets.....yet.

The governments of the day started a huge building programme to build the council estates and wipe out the slums.If they could do it in those days of abject poverty, they could set up similar schemes now.

Instead of handing out benefits for nothing in return,create jobs in the housing sector.Not pen pushing jobs in the civil service,but proper jobs where men and women use their hands to earn a living.
New houses create jobs in the retail and service areas.

We need an economy boost, not the stagnation we've got now.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

I believe that anyone who claims unemloyment benefits should be avaiable for community service and/or take on whaever on offer even if qualified and with degree...else not to claim...
many foreigners work with their hands despatie fof their often high education...if that is what they can find...
my stepdaugher did not woork for two years till found what she wanted...not waiteress or lunch aldy for her..she ahs A levels after all!


and many others feel the same...they are too middle class or jobs on offer are "too tiring"...
and those folks are in their 20!

I know people who cynically enough went to "Women in needs"...to get free housing and later council house tthough not even residents of Gibraltar!!!
with boyfriends in their house in Spain..now used as a second house for weekends!!!

lots of people are exploiting the system on both ends...no economy can survive that...


many European countries are caught in that too...

and innocent people will suffer because of all the cheats...


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

poohdog said:


> The governments of the day started a huge building programme to build the council estates and wipe out the slums.If they could do it in those days of abject poverty, they could set up similar schemes now.


Do you include training on how to build with that. Who pays for the housing? I've asked this question before in this thread and had no answers. What "boom" suddenly collapsed in Spain and Ireland which has led to empty housing and major financial problems for the governments? What do all these trained "builders" do when they don't need to build anymore houses? Where are all these houses going to be built?


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

Goblin said:


> Do you include training on how to build with that. Who pays for the housing? I've asked this question before in this thread and had no answers. What "boom" suddenly collapsed in Spain and Ireland which has led to empty housing and major financial problems for the governments? What do all these trained "builders" do when they don't need to build anymore houses? Where are all these houses going to be built?


There are answers to all of that...if only politicians would sit down and sort it. We found answers in the great depression and after the war when we were more or less bankrupt...why not now? 
There are plenty of skilled men out there sat on their arses and jobs waiting in the future with an improved economy.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

poohdog said:


> We found answers in the great depression and after the war when we were more or less bankrupt...


And people were prepared to tighten their belts and cope in a way they are no longer prepared to do.

So you don't have any answer to the main questions.. Like politicians.. sounds great if you don't have to work out the practicalities. It's like Romney's running mate.. same thing.. "We'll do this and this" When asked how.. "Don't have time to show you the maths"


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Do you include training on how to build with that. Who pays for the housing? I've asked this question before in this thread and had no answers. What "boom" suddenly collapsed in Spain and Ireland which has led to empty housing and major financial problems for the governments? What do all these trained "builders" do when they don't need to build anymore houses? Where are all these houses going to be built?


*As the old saying goes, you have to speculate to accumulate.There's no good them sitting back throwing out every stupid thought/idea that 1st comes to their minds,like they are doing.
The stupid pasty tax comes to mind.
As for Spain and Ireland aren't they using the Euro? which i thought was their downfall.Probably wrong though.*


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

If im honest i dont think any of the party 'leaders' will be able to sort the country out! Its time they all stood together pulled their heads out their back sides and did something constructive instead of talking bull sh1t! What needs doing they are too scared to do because this bloody country is too PC!

We need to train our own for the jobs that the foreign workers are taking, the folks that are on the dole..every single one of them should have a medical and if they are deemed fit to work and refuse jobs that are being handed to them on a plate by the job center they should have their money stopped.

Just today i have had to listen to people moaning how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...from someone who probably has never worked and is with a bum who has no intention of working, i listened to how their money is being cut and its disgusting etc when i know for a fact there is nearly £400 a week going into that house hold and thats without paying any rent c/tax or income tax! It boils my pee to think of how hard my oh works to keep his family and then you have the free loaders who have the freakin audacity to moan about what they are given for FREE 

Nothing will ever really change for the better IMO


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

Mese said:


> 3 times I was given an appointment to attend an ATOS meeting , and three times I told them on the phone and in writing that this wouldnt be possible because of my sociophobia ... did they listen , did they hell
> In the end my doctor had to write and tell them they were causing me more distress and depression and if they needed to see me then they would have to arrange a meeting at my house (still stressful meeting a stranger but not as bad as having to go out) which is what they did in the end
> 
> Trouble is a year and a half later im still awaiting a decision as to whether I am allowed any money after appealling 3 times (they insist me and Steve are a couple and not just sharing the house and because he loans me money to exist on they see that as further proof we are together)
> ...


That's awful 

The genuine cases really do suffer, ATOS is one huge scam.

You should be getting the assessment rate, its about 65 a week and its in place for people waiting on their appeal decision. They don't tell you that you're entitled to this, they expect you to find out for yourself. As you get DLA, you are entitled to that regardless of any other money coming into your household.

It is absolutely atrocious the way dwp treat some people


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> As the old saying goes, you have to speculate to accumulate.


Do you balance your household budget according to that? I know I wouldn't. You speculate to accumulate only if you have the money in the first place to afford to do so, otherwise you pay the bills you can and tighten the belt if necessary.



> As for Spain and Ireland aren't they using the Euro? which i thought was their downfall.Probably wrong though.


The euro had nothing to do with the downturn in the GLOBAL economy although those who are against the euro will try to persuade you otherwise. Loads of housing built, nobody to buy them in both of those countries. The speculation failed. Germany, also using the euro, isn't doing too bad from what I understand.


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

The man is an moron. He don't care? They don't affect him?. What an idiot. Nature affects us all. To destroy nature means to destroy ourselves. If nature doesn't exist then we don't exist either. Th badger cull is just one step in the wrong direction.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Do you balance your household budget according to that? I know I wouldn't. You speculate to accumulate only if you have the money in the first place to afford to do so, otherwise you pay the bills you can and tighten the belt if necessary.
> 
> The euro had nothing to do with the downturn in the GLOBAL economy although those who are against the euro will try to persuade you otherwise. Loads of housing built, nobody to buy them in both of those countries. The speculation failed. Germany, also using the euro, isn't doing too bad from what I understand.


*If this government run this country how i run my household bills we would be out of debt in no time.( ok perhaps not that quick)
I watch where my money goes and we don't live beyond our means.Sometimes we have to forsake somethings so we can have others.
Now as i see it,i don't have a problem with cut backs but i do have a problem with taking from out poorest.Also it would be nice to see that these cutbacks where actualy doing some good,but they aren't.*


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Spain?...one would think there are so many people without work?

I wanted to buy a bookshelf...got one...but unvarnished..they wanted 50 euro to varnish!
I got a tin of the stuff and did it at home..took me one hour!!!

and that is just example!!!
how many billions UK pours into Spain? 10 bln as to my knowledge...
this where the cuts go!!!in the same time Spain denied Gibraltar rights to ur own territorial waters (we do not allow fishing with nets..Spanish use nets with small holes killing immature fish...not mention those are dolphin cradles waters! we got support from all offical nature protection bodies! that was their , Spanish gov response!!!)

so blood is boiling!!!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Who pays for the housing? I've asked this question before in this thread and had no answers.


Not true. Twice I've given you the same answer:



Spellweaver said:


> And as for where we get the government money to start it in the first place - we get the government to close the tax loopholes and use the billions of taxes that will raise to fund the project.


And, btw, if you read my reply properly you'll see that I was talking about building social housing to raise rents, not building housing to sell to people with no money. That's what began the whole mess in the first place.


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> We do what Roosevelt did to get the USA out of the great depression. We use government money to create jobs. Roosevelt created jobs building roads because that was what was needed in the USA. /QUOTE]
> 
> Did it get them out of the depression, I'm sure I was taught at school it was WWII that ended the depression? OK my History O Level was quite some time ago so maybe I've got that wrong


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> We do what Roosevelt did to get the USA out of the great depression. We use government money to create jobs. Roosevelt created jobs building roads because that was what was needed in the USA. We need more social housing. We use government money to pay people to build social houses (not private housing like the example in Ireland), and that starts an upwards spiral. As well as creating houses (and rent income for councils) it creates jobs for some people. Those people will have more money to spend. They will need to be more goods manufactured for them to spend their money on. That will create more manufacturing jobs....
> ... It worked for the USA and it will work for us.


Missed that post amongst all the others so I apologize. Still haven't answered the other questions... training? What happens when no more social housing is needed? Just sack a load of people? What about the key expertise areas for the future?

What is the Return Of Investment (ROI) for social housing? That in itself is a likely continuing money drain even when built. Yes housing is needed but often housing is needed is specific areas which prices people out. In parts of London, nurses and teachers often cannot afford housing (well at least 10 years ago this was the case and I doubt it's any better). Solution.. social housing? Where is it going to be built? Are you going to force people out of their homes so you can build social housing? What would happen long term? My opinion is ghetto's and estates would be the likely result rather than vibrant communities. You only have to look at many estate blocks to see the effects when this was tried in the past.

So you build housing.. build roads,rail etc for travel.. Does this help if people are not prepared to travel for work? If they are, what happens to society if a parent never sees their family? I used to travel 2hrs+ each way for one job. Luckily I didn't have a family as any children would have seen me only when going to bed or weekends.

You are also not taking into allowance the fact that we live in a GLOBAL economy. The impact of the whole "creating jobs as people have money" doesn't work as easily as it did in the past. It's cheaper to buy things from, say China. Do you expect people to "buy British" as that hasn't worked out too well in the past? Force it? You can't legally within the global economy. If you try you can kiss exports goodbye.

Didn't Labour attempt to spend it's way out of the problem and achieve nothing?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Talk about history repeating itself.*

"The 1929 the American stock market crash set off global economic shock waves. British exports, already falling in the 1920s, fell by half again and unemployment rose to three million. The National Government of 1931 cut benefits of insured workers by ten per cent. The Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, faced the prospect of millions of workers relying on 'poor law relief', paid for by local ratepayers, who were hard pressed themselves. It became clear that the unemployed had to be supported from national taxation and not local rates - a process that was completed by 1934."

*A very interesting read if you care to take a look.*
The Cabinet Papers | 1930s Depression and unemployment


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *If this government run this country how i run my household bills we would be out of debt in no time.( ok perhaps not that quick)*


*
Which is my point.. Speculating to accumulate doesn't work if you don't have any money to begin with.




Now as i see it,i don't have a problem with cut backs but i do have a problem with taking from out poorest.

Click to expand...

Here I would change your wording. I do have a problem with taking it from those who deserve it. How to judge those is another problem. I also have no problem with closing tax loopholes for the rich but don't think taxing them so they leave is the solution either.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Which is my point.. Speculating to accumulate doesn't work if you don't have any money to begin with.
> 
> 
> Here I would change your wording. I do have a problem with taking it from those *who deserve it*. How to judge those is another problem. I also have no problem with closing tax loopholes for the rich but don't think taxing them so they leave is the solution either.


*Ok just an example of how i see things.We could save billions just by not getting involved with every other countries arguments.War is not the answer imo. unless we are actualy under attack. I will add here just for the record,i DID agree with the Falklands war.But only because i believe our armed forces are in place to defend what is ours.
Now with this example we have already saved billions..its simple maths to me.
Next i would get the hell out of Europe. I'm sick of them dictating to us what we should and shouldn't be doing.Again,i say look after our own first.Then when we are in a possition to do so,we will help others.
*


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

it amuses me no end that anyone thinks ANY politician is in it to help anyone other than themselves


----------



## Goldstar (Nov 12, 2011)

Less money needs to be paid out to whole families on benefits. How is it justifiable for a family with both parents out of work and a load of kids to get more than the average working family plus get all their rent/council tax paid as well. 
If a few hundred pound a week for a family on benefits isnt enough for them to afford rent, how is it fair to say an average working family, on the same or less as the family on benefits be expected to pay all of their rent and council tax?

To be fair, the government has made a rod for their own back by giving people on benefits an incentive to keep having babies!

IMO there are a lot of factors involved but large families who rely fully on benefits is one of the major ones. They need larger housing for one thing. If private renting this could be up to 600 a month or more they get in hb.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

:


Colliebarmy said:


> it amuses me no end that anyone thinks ANY politician is in it to help anyone other than themselves


* I don't trust any of them.But i know a crook when i see one.*


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

They have us ALL exactly where they want us - fighting and arguing amongst ourselves blaming each other INSTEAD of blaming them! they have got us into this whole mess - the system has been fundamently broken for years but they allowed it to carry on and let more and more cheats take advantage - now they are panicking and who do they hurt first? the poor and disabled  

I word damn hard and I always have I pay my tax and NI like anyone else but I dont begrude those who need genuine help and I dont think they should be penalised because the Government cannot put a system in place to catch the real deals from the cheats! 

What makes me laugh is when all the banks were in trouble and needed bailing out with MILLIONS/BILLIONS - the Government did so!!! just like that!! so for them to say they need to cut benefits because they have no money is absolute ******! - its time they started cutting the astronomical wages of all the political parties and the fat cat bankers sat in their comfy offices creaming us all instead of the average joe bloggs!


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Wobbles said:


> He should stop giving away money to countries that are nothing to do with us for a start, that would save a packet. Let them fend for themselves, britain isn't a bank for the whole world to dip into.
> 
> However, remember labour whose motto was give, give, give, spend, spend,spend? Well it wasn't a bottomless pit after all, it now needs replacing, and the only way the next person along can do that is to cut as much as possible. *Blair and Brown's mess,* Cameron's just clearing up.


I think you'll find that is was America and the World Banks started this mess no two men could cause a world problem.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Happy Paws said:


> I think you'll find that is was America and the World Banks started this mess no two men could cause a world problem.


Blair and Brown buried their heads in the sand though to further their careers.
Well Blair did anyway, he bailed and dropped Brown in it as soon as he knew it was out of control


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

rona said:


> Blair and Brown buried their heads in the sand though to further their careers.
> Well Blair did anyway, he bailed and dropped Brown in it as soon as he knew it was out of control


Well most economists say whatever stance blair/brown took we would still be in this mess anyway!

It was always the plan to let gordon brown take over, though lord knows why!!!


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

skip said:


> Suggestion why don't the politicians take a cut in wages, move instead of having a second home after all its what they tell Joe public to do,cut back on all those unnecessary lunches,big cars,I could go on.
> Lead by example and then perhaps Joe public would not mind having to cut back quite so much


They did take a cut - and a freeze. And the Ministerial cars have gone - which was actually ridiculous because it cost us more to get rid of them but we mustn't have the people who run the country on time for anything!

Your answer, and I hope I'm getting this right - is that MPs should all move to London instead of renting a second home there? Is that correct? Please tell me that you can see the massive problem with that?

Do you know any MPs personally?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> They have us ALL exactly where they want us - fighting and arguing amongst ourselves blaming each other INSTEAD of blaming them! they have got us into this whole mess - the system has been fundamently broken for years but they allowed it to carry on and let more and more cheats take advantage - now they are panicking and who do they hurt first? the poor and disabled
> 
> I word damn hard and I always have I pay my tax and NI like anyone else but I dont begrude those who need genuine help and I dont think they should be penalised because the Government cannot put a system in place to catch the real deals from the cheats!
> 
> What makes me laugh is when all the banks were in trouble and needed bailing out with MILLIONS/BILLIONS - the Government did so!!! just like that!! so for them to say they need to cut benefits because they have no money is absolute ******! - its time they started cutting the astronomical wages of all the political parties and the fat cat bankers sat in their comfy offices creaming us all instead of the average joe bloggs!


Can I take it from this that you've never taken a penny of interest from the banks? And you pay for your banking services, I assume?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Happy Paws said:


> I think you'll find that is was America and the World Banks started this mess no two men could cause a world problem.


Actually, it's not as simple as that. The American banks sold loans to people without thoroughly checking if they could afford them, the people took out the loans knowing that they couldn't afford them, then investment banks packaged up those people and products and sold them to other banks, who didn't do their research and ended up with duff products, they then either sold them on to other banks or forced Governments to bail them out.

The UK Government (Brown) didn't bail out the banks to just save the banks - he did it to save our economy. If he hadn't have done that, we'd still be in a deep recession and nearly everyone with a mortgage would be in serious difficult and everyone would have lost their savings because they would be worthless.

But people like to ignore that, and they like to ignore their part in it all because it's easier to blame others. Let's not forget that we're also making a tidy profit on the banks we bailed out and we still have a reasonably stable economy which will get better. But it won't go back to the times when everyone was remortgaging and spending like it was going out of fashion.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> We do what Roosevelt did to get the USA out of the great depression. We use government money to create jobs. Roosevelt created jobs building roads because that was what was needed in the USA. We need more social housing. We use government money to pay people to build social houses (not private housing like the example in Ireland), and that starts an upwards spiral. As well as creating houses (and rent income for councils) it creates jobs for some people. Those people will have more money to spend. They will need to be more goods manufactured for them to spend their money on. That will create more manufacturing jobs. That will mean more people with more money to spend, more people needing more things, more things needing manufacturing, more manufacturing jobs  and so it goes on. The economy grows. All these people in work will be paying taxes. The country earns more money and can begin to pay off its debts and divert some money to the truly needy. It worked for the USA and it will work for us.
> 
> And as for where we get the government money to start it in the first place - we get the government to close the tax loopholes and use the billions of taxes that will raise to fund the project.


Funny you should mention that, at our tech brief yesterday they outlined just how many millions is being spent on the railways infrastructure, lots of jobs have been created some permanent, giving the chance for folks to learn new skills and a new career. This government backs the High Speed rail link, and the upgrade to the LNW line, which is long overdue, will cost a lot of our money, but will generate work, boost spending, and improve our infrastructure overall.



alan g a said:


> The man is an moron. He don't care? They don't affect him?. What an idiot. Nature affects us all. To destroy nature means to destroy ourselves. If nature doesn't exist then we don't exist either. Th badger cull is just one step in the wrong direction.


What's that got to do with this topic? 

I don't want to turn the thread off on a tangent, but that is in my opinion a very naieve and simplistic statement for a much more complex issue.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

WriterC said:


> Actually, it's not as simple as that. The American banks sold loans to people without thoroughly checking if they could afford them, the people took out the loans knowing that they couldn't afford them, then investment banks packaged up those people and products and sold them to other banks, who didn't do their research and ended up with duff products, they then either sold them on to other banks or forced Governments to bail them out.
> 
> The UK Government (Brown) didn't bail out the banks to just save the banks - he did it to save our economy. If he hadn't have done that, we'd still be in a deep recession and nearly everyone with a mortgage would be in serious difficult and everyone would have lost their savings because they would be worthless.
> 
> ...


As I said it wasn't Tony Blair or Gordon Brown that got us into this mess.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

WriterC said:


> But people like to ignore that, and they like to ignore their part in it all because it's easier to blame others. Let's not forget that we're also making a tidy profit on the banks we bailed out and we still have a reasonably stable economy which will get better. But it won't go back to the times when everyone was remortgaging and spending like it was going out of fashion.


That's true, nearly every single person who borrowed beyond their means have a part in this debacle.
The I want now mentality played a huge part in it all, or does everyone blame the banks for their own stupidity?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

WriterC said:


> Can I take it from this that you've never taken a penny of interest from the banks? And you pay for your banking services, I assume?


But the interest the banks charge on borrowing is greater then what they pay out on savings! And overdrafts are charged if the account holder goes overdrawn! So I guess the answer to that is YES many people have paid. Is this not the business of a bank?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DT said:


> But the interest the banks charge on borrowing is greater then what they pay out on savings! And overdrafts are charged if the account holder goes overdrawn! So I guess the answer to that is YES many people have paid. Is this not the business of a bank?


Yes but in other countries people pay to simply have a bank account, we have it easy in the UK, ok, so there have been bad practices, and recently the interest rate has been very low affecting those people who have got a large sum of money banked, but that's not always been the case, and the low interest rates help those at the poorest end of the scale, to afford their mortgages.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DT said:


> But the interest the banks charge on borrowing is greater then what they pay out on savings! And overdrafts are charged if the account holder goes overdrawn! So I guess the answer to that is YES many people have paid. Is this not the business of a bank?


That's immaterial - you can't rail against the banks and hold them responsible for everything bad in the world if you've used them for your own benefit. You can, of course, but you'd be a hypocrite.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

Happy Paws said:


> As I said it wasn't Tony Blair or Gordon Brown that got us into this mess.


But they played a part. Gordon Brown was a fantastic chancellor at the beginning of the Government - he paid the national debt, he presided over a strong, enduring economy, but he let things slide. His actions (and in some cases - inaction) made it possible for the economy to tank as it did.

If he'd have properly legislated for decent regulation we wouldn't have been anywhere nearly affected as we have been. He should have taken action far sooner by slashing public spending to a manageable long-term level. The only thing he did right was not listen to the Tories - if he had, we would be in a depression and we'd be really suffering.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

WriterC said:


> That's immaterial - you can't rail against the banks and hold them responsible for everything bad in the world if you've used them for your own benefit. You can, of course, but you'd be a hypocrite.


Erm! excuse me! I have not railed against the banks -EVER - people are responsible for their borrowing, I am a firm believer that if you can't afford to pay it then don't have it!

I was merely, pointing out that the majority of people who use banks pay towards there upkeep albeit indirectly!


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

WriterC said:


> Can I take it from this that you've never taken a penny of interest from the banks? And you pay for your banking services, I assume?


I can assure u the bank has had far more money off me then I have received interest ....its a banks job to make money off their customers!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

suzy93074 said:


> I can assure u the bank has had far more money off me then I have received interest ....its a banks job to make money off their customers!


My bank has had less money from me, than I have from them, I have a very poor credit rating because I'm not in debt (not inferring you are btw) but banks are a business, and they have to make money from some customers. Would you prefer to pay for the privilege of banking your money?

I'm actually torn, banks where you pay a fee to use their services seem to be run better, with much better customer services from what I've learned talking to people who live in countries where banks charge fees. Here in the UK, you're not treated as a customer, but a cash cow, and if you don't have enough money then they will try and turn that to their benefit.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> My bank has had less money from me, than I have from them, I have a very poor credit rating because I'm not in debt (not inferring you are btw) but banks are a business, and they have to make money from some customers. Would you prefer to pay for the privilege of banking your money?
> 
> I'm actually torn, banks where you pay a fee to use their services seem to be run better, with much better customer services from what I've learned talking to people who live in countries where banks charge fees. Here in the UK, you're not treated as a customer, but a cash cow, and if you don't have enough money then they will try and turn that to their benefit.


I am the same SL, I worked for one of the high street banks many years ago and we were not ever, under any circumstances allowed to go overdrawn, I have also worked for high rish finance companies, that thrive off of the poor.

I have never ever had any interest with the exception of a very small mortgage many years ago! My otherhalf does not have a credit rating either!
Even his first house was paid for outright and he's never had interest. So yep! Im quids in .


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DT said:


> Erm! excuse me! I have not railed against the banks -EVER - people are responsible for their borrowing, I am a firm believer that if you can't afford to pay it then don't have it!
> 
> I was merely, pointing out that the majority of people who use banks pay towards there upkeep albeit indirectly!


It was a general 'you'.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> My bank has had less money from me, than I have from them, I have a very poor credit rating because I'm not in debt (not inferring you are btw) but banks are a business, and they have to make money from some customers. Would you prefer to pay for the privilege of banking your money?
> 
> I'm actually torn, banks where you pay a fee to use their services seem to be run better, with much better customer services from what I've learned talking to people who live in countries where banks charge fees. Here in the UK, you're not treated as a customer, but a cash cow, and if you don't have enough money then they will try and turn that to their benefit.


I hav in the past had some debt .....but not anymore ....once bitten twice shy .....but imo banks thrive on people in debt as that is where they make their money .....yes its our responsibility to ensure we don't borrow beyond our means but equally I think the banks have been very irresponsible in how much they lend and to who ...esp where overdrafts are concerned ....I wud not mind paying for banking if I knew I was was going to get good customer service ie when I phoned them I was not transfered tosomeone in India lol


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

suzy93074 said:


> I hav in the past had some debt .....but not anymore ....once bitten twice shy .....but imo banks thrive on people in debt as that is where they make their money .....yes its our responsibility to ensure we don't borrow beyond our means but equally I think the banks have been very irresponsible in how much they lend and to who ...esp where overdrafts are concerned ....I wud not mind paying for banking if I knew I was was going to get good customer service ie when I phoned them I was not transfered tosomeone in India lol


I agree, but the current government isn't to blame for all the woes we see in our banking industry, it goes back further than that.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Polimba said:


> Spellweaver said:
> 
> 
> > We do what Roosevelt did to get the USA out of the great depression. We use government money to create jobs. Roosevelt created jobs building roads because that was what was needed in the USA.
> ...


heh heh - bet it was not as long ago as my history O Level! From memory I thought I remembered being taught that the new deal did end the depression but - memory being what it is - I googled to find out.

It seems it was working very well before the war started and would have continued to work:

_New Deal, 1933-37: Large GDP growth
During the initial phase of the New Deal (1933-37), the U.S. economy grew at a compound annual rate of about 9%, with GDP rising from $635 billion in 1933 to $911 billion in 1937_

_In late 1938, FDR then was able to turn back Republican pressures, and returned to his fiscal stimulus instincts, newly confident that it was working and had expanded GDP, and rigorous GDP growth resumed through 1940._

_Fiscal Stimulus/Economic Analysis: The New Deal increased U.S. GDP and resulted in a substantial decrease in U.S. unemployment, both during its initial phase (1933-37) and after FDR turned back 1937-38 Republican pressure to balance the budget (1939-41). The fiscal stimulus provided by the New Deal worked. That's the record, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise._
Did New Deal end Depression? History says deficit spending works - DailyFinance

but the war and spending on the war (with its associated escalated manufacturing) gave it a healthy boost and probably ended the depression more quickly:

_Federal government spending for World War II (1941-45) then drove U.S. unemployment down to as low as 1.5%, as the nation mobilized to defeat the Axis threat of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperialist Japan._
Did New Deal end Depression? History says deficit spending works - DailyFinance


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

WriterC said:


> They did take a cut - and a freeze. And the Ministerial cars have gone - which was actually ridiculous because it cost us more to get rid of them but we mustn't have the people who run the country on time for anything!
> 
> Your answer, and I hope I'm getting this right - is that MPs should all move to London instead of renting a second home there? Is that correct? Please tell me that you can see the massive problem with that?
> 
> Do you know any MPs personally?


I'm sure they hardly even noticed their pay cut and on their wages a freeze won't make a difference to being able to afford their shopping or bills because hey ho they've got expenses too that they can abuse and put down to ....I forgot
As for the homes if they can't afford to live in digs find another job,move do what they expect the rest of the struggling population to do
As for their transport if they weren't so extra agent in the first place


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

skip said:


> I'm sure they hardly even noticed their pay cut and on their wages a freeze won't make a difference to being able to afford their shopping or bills because hey ho they've got expenses too that they can abuse and put down to ....I forgot


So you don't actually care that they've taken a pay cut - you want to see them struggle. It's nothing to do with fairness - you just want revenge on people who are doing better than you.

If it's as easy as you say, why don't you become an MP?



skip said:


> As for the homes if they can't afford to live in digs find another job,


Have you even thought about what that means? Only those who are independently wealthy would be able to be MPs. Do you think that would help you?



skip said:


> move do what they expect the rest of the struggling population to do


The rest of the 'struggling population' aren't running the country. If you actually knew any MPs I doubt you'd be acting as if they do nothing and just collect a huge pay cheque every week.



skip said:


> As for their transport if they weren't so extra agent in the first place


They're really not that extravagant. Obviously we differ if you think ministers carrying sensitive information related to this country's wellbeing, finances, safety etc should have to get the tube or a bus. They're not commuting here - they're carrying out the country's business. I'd rather they did that safely and efficiently rather than potentially dangerously and cheaply just to pander to the jealous.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Missed that post amongst all the others so I apologize. Still haven't answered the other questions... training? What happens when no more social housing is needed? Just sack a load of people? What about the key expertise areas for the future?


Building social housing is just the beginning that sets off the spiral. As the spiral works and the economy begins to strengthen, other jobs will be created - jobs in manufacturing, jobs in selling, more building jobs as firms expand, jobs in the leisure industry and tourism as more people in work have more money to spend. More people in work means more people paying taxes, which means more money in the government coffers to pay for training, retraining, planning for the future, more public services - which in turn means even more people in work. And so it goes on.



Goblin said:


> What is the Return Of Investment (ROI) for social housing? That in itself is a likely continuing money drain even when built.


It is equally as likely that they will make money in rents. I heard on the news the other day that people are now unable to afford to buy houses until they are in their 30's - renting seems a good option. In France, for example, people rent as often as they buy, often with loing term leases - you don't hear of housing there countries being a money drain.



Goblin said:


> Solution.. social housing? Where is it going to be built? Are you going to force people out of their homes so you can build social housing? What would happen long term? My opinion is ghetto's and estates would be the likely result rather than vibrant communities. You only have to look at many estate blocks to see the effects when this was tried in the past.


How silly - there are plenty of places where housing can be built without "forcing people from their homes". If you forced someone from their home you would have an empty house 



Goblin said:


> So you build housing.. build roads,rail etc for travel.. Does this help if people are not prepared to travel for work? If they are, what happens to society if a parent never sees their family? I used to travel 2hrs+ each way for one job. Luckily I didn't have a family as any children would have seen me only when going to bed or weekends.


Not quite sure how you think this scenario will result from a scheme of building houses and creating jobs - this is more like what is happening now. There was a thread on here the other week about the distances people have to travel to work



Goblin said:


> You are also not taking into allowance the fact that we live in a GLOBAL economy. The impact of the whole "creating jobs as people have money" doesn't work as easily as it did in the past. It's cheaper to buy things from, say China. Do you expect people to "buy British" as that hasn't worked out too well in the past? Force it? You can't legally within the global economy. If you try you can kiss exports goodbye.


Creating a solid manufacturing base upon which to base a country's economy is still a much better option than basing it upon financial operations. It's financial wheeler dealing that has caused the global recession.



Goblin said:


> Didn't Labour attempt to spend it's way out of the problem and achieve nothing?


I didn't see labour increasing a solid manufacturing base. If they had done, the economy would be on its way to recovery now.

And anyway, what's your solution? It's easiest thing in the to sit back and pick holes in solutions other people offer - what would you suggest is the way forwards?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

WriterC said:


> It was a general 'you'.


The maybe it should have been 'people' , 'others' or 'some'
'you' to me indicates 'me'

That said english was never my strong point


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

WriterC said:


> So you don't actually care that they've taken a pay cut - you want to see them struggle. It's nothing to do with fairness - you just want revenge on people who are doing better than you.
> 
> If it's as easy as you say, why don't you become an MP?
> 
> ...


It must be very tiring carrying that huge chip around on your shoulder,you come across as a very angry and aggressive person on most of your posts in this forum. Perhaps you should look into anger management or counselling.


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

skip said:


> It must be very tiring carrying that huge chip around on your shoulder,you come across as a very angry and aggressive person on most of your posts in this forum. Perhaps you should look into anger management or counselling.


Not particularly. Certainly no more tiring than I imagine it is to walk around in a state of perpetual ignorance about the way the world works. Perhaps you should look into becoming an informed member of society?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DT said:


> The maybe it should have been 'people' , 'others' or 'some'
> 'you' to me indicates 'me'
> 
> That said english was never my strong point


Not when used in the general sense - which was plainly obvious.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

it sounds like u are dying to tell us that u Do know an MP Writerc  quite frankly if u do I don't care lol my opinion is still the same and is one that many of your fellow journalists encourage!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

WriterC said:


> Not when used in the general sense - which was plainly obvious.


Not to me it wasn't! Note to self, enrol in a part time english course and brush up on communication skills


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

DT said:


> Not to me it wasn't! Note to self, enrol in a part time english course and brush up on communication skills


Sign me up to come with you


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

suzy93074 said:


> it sounds like u are dying to tell us that u Do know an MP Writerc  quite frankly if u do I don't care lol my opinion is still the same and is one that many of your fellow journalists encourage!


Hey









I know an MP


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

tashi said:


> Sign me up to come with you


Erm! think maybe I'd better back track on this! They'll be no excuse for my behaviour if I learn how to be 'correct'


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

I hope I win millions upon millions from the lottery, so not only I can know a politician, I can buy one.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

DogLover1981 said:


> I hope I win millions upon millions from the lottery, so not only I can know a politician, I can buy one.


go for the Euro lottery! You might be able to afford a cabinet full of em


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

rona said:


> Hey
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Show off:001_tt2:


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> it sounds like u are dying to tell us that u Do know an MP Writerc  quite frankly if u do I don't care lol my opinion is still the same and is one that many of your fellow journalists encourage!


Does it really? It's a question designed to make someone think about the consequences of their opinions. It seems strange to me to want to get rid of the system that allows anyone the chance to become an MP, in order to make things 'more fair'.

I also think it's very strange for someone to have an unwavering opinion when they quite clearly don't know the full facts of a situation.

You'll have to explain why others in my profession having a differing opinion to me, matters at all? What do you do? Does the opinion of others who have the same career mean that your opinions should be influenced by them?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

WriterC said:


> Does it really? It's a question designed to make someone think about the consequences of their opinions. It seems strange to me to want to get rid of the system that allows anyone the chance to become an MP, in order to make things 'more fair'.
> 
> I also think it's very strange for someone to have an unwavering opinion when they quite clearly don't know the full facts of a situation.
> 
> You'll have to explain why others in my profession having a differing opinion to me, matters at all? What do you do? Does the opinion of others who have the same career mean that your opinions should be influenced by them?


Our MP is Patrick Mercer, Can't say i know him but have spoken to him on a couple of occassions, He has always been approachable and comes across as very proffessional and certainly doesn't beat around the bush. I have, as it happens much respect for him and consider him to be worthy of his salary (not that i am certain of what that is).


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

WriterC said:


> Does it really? It's a question designed to make someone think about the consequences of their opinions. It seems strange to me to want to get rid of the system that allows anyone the chance to become an MP, in order to make things 'more fair'.
> 
> I also think it's very strange for someone to have an unwavering opinion when they quite clearly don't know the full facts of a situation.
> 
> You'll have to explain why others in my profession having a differing opinion to me, matters at all? What do you do? Does the opinion of others who have the same career mean that your opinions should be influenced by them?


Eh?

You'll have to simplify that for us dimbos, or should that be bimbos  Or am I the only one here?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

rona said:


> Eh?
> 
> You'll have to simplify that for us dimbos, or should that be bimbos  Or am I the only one here?


Which part are you having trouble with?


----------



## WriterC (Jul 27, 2012)

DT said:


> Our MP is Patrick Mercer, Can't say i know him but have spoken to him on a couple of occassions, He has always been approachable and comes across as very proffessional and certainly doesn't beat around the bush. I have, as it happens much respect for him and consider him to be worthy of his salary (not that i am certain of what that is).


His salary is currently £65,738 per year.

You can have a gander at his expenses claims here - UK Parliament - Allowances by MP - Patrick Mercer


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

One thing the goverment needs to address is companies taking all their processes off shore. I alone have been a victim to this twice this year. I live in the so called affluent south, Silicon Valley etc with all the blue chip companies, building after building standing empty. With the electronic revolution a man in India or Eastern Europe can do my job for much less. Make it worth while for business to invest in this country to stay here to employ British Citizens. Then British Citizens can invest in turn in their country... When I was a kid there was a slogan every where.. Buy British. Make Britain Great!!


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

I agree that their is no 'QUICK FIX' to this country's current financial crisis (unless I am missing the point somewhere ) but how can we trust a man who has been voted into his current possition by the people who ,by his own admission, doesn't care about this country or the people that put him where he is. Anything goes, it seems, as long as it doesn't affect him.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

alan g a said:


> I agree that their is no 'QUICK FIX' to this country's current financial crisis (unless I am missing the point somewhere ) but how can we trust a man who has been voted into his current possition by the people who ,by his own admission, doesn't care about this country or the people that put him where he is. Anything goes, it seems, as long as it doesn't affect him.


*If my memory serves me right,the only person to put Cameron where he is was his muppet sidekick Nick Clegg.*


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

WriterC said:


> Does it really? It's a question designed to make someone think about the consequences of their opinions. It seems strange to me to want to get rid of the system that allows anyone the chance to become an MP, in order to make things 'more fair'.
> 
> I also think it's very strange for someone to have an unwavering opinion when they quite clearly don't know the full facts of a situation.
> 
> You'll have to explain why others in my profession having a differing opinion to me, matters at all? What do you do? Does the opinion of others who have the same career mean that your opinions should be influenced by them?


I have never said I want to get rid of the system actually - I have said that the system is corrupt and needs changing - change does not mean to get rid.

I can have an opinion on anything I like - regardless of if I know the FULL facts - I doubt ANYONE actually knows the full facts of anything - unless you are in a position to do so - including you! - although to hear you talk you have the keys to all the admin/stats/figures for the whole country  you seem to love being judge and juror in fact it seems like you could be a likely candidate to run the country single handed

I have not said it MATTERS that your opinion differs to others in your profession but merely pointed out that it DOES - so does that mean they are all wrong and you are right?? or is all of this JUST YOUR OPINION ?? in which case non of us are wrong because we are all entitled to one without being belittled !

NB: Janice - sorry to take off topic - lets move forward!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I'm all for sorting out the cheats


But the people Harley Bear is referring to aren't benefit cheats - they are claiming perfectly legally.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> But the people Harley Bear is referring to aren't benefit cheats - they are claiming perfectly legally.


Exactly! - hence the system is corrupt and been abused !


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

suzy93074 said:


> I have never said I want to get rid of the system actually - I have said that the system is corrupt and needs changing - change does not mean to get rid.
> 
> I can have an opinion on anything I like - regardless of if I know the FULL facts - I doubt ANYONE actually knows the full facts of anything - unless you are in a position to do so - including you! - although to hear you talk you have the keys to all the admin/stats/figures for the whole country  you seem to love being judge and juror in fact it seems like you could be a likely candidate to run the country single handed
> 
> ...


*If we are honest Suzy i don't even think the powers that be know the full facts.If they did,and if they gave a damn they would sort this mess out.
It not just what they are doing to the benefit system that pees my off,but i haven't seen any good come from them yet.And they have had over 2 years to make some sort of difference.*


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *If we are honest Suzy i don't even think the powers that be know the full facts.If they did,and if they gave a damn they would sort this mess out.
> It not just what they are doing to the benefit system that pees my off,but i haven't seen any good come from them yet.And they have had over 2 years to make some sort of difference.*


Exactly Jan! Ive always said we need a peoples party! - savvy business people who have lived in the real world and know how it really works!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

suzy93074 said:


> Exactly Jan! Ive always said we need a peoples party! - savvy business people who have lived in the real world and know how it really works!


*Hey suzy, i'm a scrooge when it comes to parting with money.But! when i do its worth it.
Perhaps a few of us could make a party of our own.Well as long as i can be prime minister.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Leon55ia said:


> I think last week proved it with what one of them said they do think we are just a load of plebs


*I think his comment was aimed at the policeman on the gate,not the public.*


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

suzy93074 said:


> Exactly Jan! Ive always said we need a peoples party! - savvy business people who have lived in the real world and know how it really works!


That is exactly the issue, the reason there is no difference between any of the bunch & why they are all as bad as each other, its because they are career politicians - they go into politics for whats in it for them not what they can do for the country. Very few have lived in the real world, worked, or ran a business


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> That is exactly the issue, the reason there is no difference between any of the bunch & why they are all as bad as each other, its because they are career politicians - they go into politics for whats in it for them not what they can do for the country. Very few have lived in the real world, worked, or ran a business


*And how quick they conveniently forget they are supposed to be working for us.
I think they should take a good look at having referendums for the important things,that concern this country.*


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Hey suzy, i'm a scrooge when it comes to parting with money.But! when i do its worth it.
> Perhaps a few of us could make a party of our own.Well as long as i can be prime minister.*


come on then when are you going to start your campaign :001_tt2:R and whats the party going to be called


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *And how quick they conveniently forget they are supposed to be working for us.
> I think they should take a good look at having referendums for the important things,that concern this country.*


Hence no referendum on Europe - if there was odds are we would be out, where would they all go out to graze then!


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

The problem i can see is that years ago when there was loads of jobs people were being allowed to sit around on benefits.Now there are few jobs to be had they are bullying and cutting benefits for people that can't find work despite applying for loads of jobs and making people that genuinely ill deemed fit for work and then cutting their benefits because they can't find a job.Who really wants too employ someone that is unlikely too turn up for work 3 days a week?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *And how quick they conveniently forget they are supposed to be working for us.
> I think they should take a good look at having referendums for the important things,that concern this country.*


Great idea... have people who often do not have a clue and will not actually research anything decide things 

Isn't that what the UK Independence Party want?

Doesn't matter what country by the way, politicians are all the same. If they didn't have to vote for their "party" though nothing would get done or decided.


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

My army cousin sent me this, think it sums things up nicely!

Subject: Famous Holes



1. Kimberley Big Hole - South Africa

Apparently the largest ever hand-dug excavation in the world, this 1097-meter-deep mine yielded over three tons of diamonds before being closed.


2. Glory Hole - Monticello Dam, California

This is the Glory Hole at Monticello Dam, and it's the largest in the world of this type of spillway, its size enabling it to consume 14,400 cubic feet of water every second. 
A glory hole is used when a dam is at full capacity and water needs to be drained from the reservoir.


3 Great Blue Hole , Belize

This incredible geographical phenomenon known as a blue hole is situated 60 miles off the mainland of Belize .
There are numerous blue holes around the world but none as stunning as this one.


4 Sinkhole in Guatemala

This photo is of a sinkhole that occurred February 2007 in Guatemala . It swallowed two dozen homes and killed at least three people.



5. This is the famous Sh!t Hole. 
It is capable of swallowing Millions of pounds of Tax Payers Money and it contains at least 600 arseholes


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Great idea... have people who often do not have a clue and will not actually research anything decide things
> 
> Isn't that what the UK Independence Party want?
> 
> Doesn't matter what country by the way, politicians are all the same. If they didn't have to vote for their "party" though nothing would get done or decided.


*lol..Do you think the ones we have in power now,have a clue?*


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Well according to a lot of the "experts" in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) they are doing the right thing for the long term. This despite the fact the IMF have recently downgraded the UK growth forecast. Although basic policy may be set by those in power they are guided by "experts".

Sure beats policy being decided by who makes the most sensational adverts.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Well according to a lot of the "experts" in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) they are doing the right thing for the long term. This despite the fact the IMF have recently downgraded the UK growth forecast. Although basic policy may be set by those in power they are guided by "experts".
> 
> Sure beats policy being decided by who makes the most sensational adverts.


*Are these the experts you refer to?
*


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *Are these the experts you refer to?
> *


bit like letting Jimmy Saville be your kids party DJ...... ut:


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Are these the experts you refer to?
> *


Prefer it to people like those shown in the attachment (sorry for those who are too young to remember them)


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Top and bottom of it, there has to be cuts!
We are very lucky to even have a welfare system, Shame some see it as a way of life! And thats whats caused the problem creating the benifits shake up , If these lowlifes didn't con the system and the idle got off their jacksy's then those who *needed* help would not be deprived it in the way they are.
because this has continued for as long as it has the unfortunate are paying now!


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

First cuts should be overseas aid...

At last, Britain axes aid to India (but the country rich enough to have its own space programme will STILL get £1.6bn handout) | Mail Online


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Well according to a lot of the "experts" in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) they are doing the right thing for the long term. This despite the fact the IMF have recently downgraded the UK growth forecast. Although basic policy may be set by those in power they are guided by "experts".


The issue is not whether or not their their policy may work in the long term, but whether or not it is the _only_ policy that will work. History has shown us that there is a different way to get to the economy on its feet wthout taking money from the needy. The tories' policy is merely the one which will work _that best suits the tories and their cronies_.



DT said:


> Top and bottom of it, there has to be cuts!


But do there really have to be cuts or are we all being hoodwinked? If they closed tax loopholes so that huge conglomerates and the uber rich couldn't weasle out of paying their dues, wouldn't that go a long way to offsetting the defecit without taking money away from the needy? If they brought back a higher tax band so that the really rich paid more towards their country, wouldn't that be better than taking money from the needy?

I always find it ironic when people are willing to accept benefit cuts for the needy, but when it is suggested that the wealthy pay more tax they think it is dreadful (don't mean you here DT - I'm talking in general). What is the difference? In both cases we are taking money from a particular social group for the sake of the country. Why is it deemed ok to take money from one group, but not from another? Is it because the rich can fight back, but the genuinely needy cannot? The excuse that is usually trotted out is that if we ask richer people to pay more tax they will take umbrage and leave the country. Well let them - but first pass a law that says they have to leave their wealth behind if they do so!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

[/I said:


> .
> 
> But do there really have to be cuts or are we all being hoodwinked? If they closed tax loopholes so that huge conglomerates and the uber rich couldn't weasle out of paying their dues, wouldn't that go a long way to offsetting the defecit without taking money away from the needy? If they brought back a higher tax band so that the really rich paid more towards their country, wouldn't that be better than taking money from the needy?
> 
> I always find it ironic when people are willing to accept benefit cuts for the needy, but when it is suggested that the wealthy pay more tax they think it is dreadful (don't mean you here DT - I'm talking in general). What is the difference? In both cases we are taking money from a particular social group for the sake of the country. Why is it deemed ok to take money from one group, but not from another? Is it because the rich can fight back, but the genuinely needy cannot? The excuse that is usually trotted out is that if we ask richer people to pay more tax they will take umbrage and leave the country. Well let them - but first pass a law that says they have to leave their wealth behind if they do so!


Even if there did not have to be cuts then they whole system still needs sorting out! I find it totally unfair that there are low paid workers with families out there, that are repsonsible and hard working! WHY should these people live from hand to mouth each week in houses that many would not choose to live in whilst some who have never done, nor intend doing a days work in their lives are living in houses way beyond their means, houses that these people who do work could never dream of living in.
Is that right?


----------



## pacey63 (Apr 28, 2010)

sooner he is gone the better. i happen to be lucky enough to have a job and have worked since i left school, all except one 18 month period. which was hell, i do remember though not having 2 pennys to scratch my backside with, i also remember my visits to job centres that didn't have jobs. not everyone on the dole is a scrounger and don't be fooled by these programmes that show women spending all their benefits on booze, or the person on invalidity who gets caught going down a slide on holiday and the like..all these little snippets of imformation are put out there to brainwash people into thinking everyone who is on benefits is a scrounger and having the time of their lives on it, which is untrue. i certainly didn't and i know plenty of others not living it up either. while some work the system the majority don't.. ( i will do another post later, my grandson wants to watch dinosaurs on youtube)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DT said:


> Even if there did not have to be cuts then they whole system still needs sorting out! I find it totally unfair that there are low paid workers with families out there, that are repsonsible and hard working! WHY should these people live from hand to mouth each week in houses that many would not choose to live in whilst some who have never done, nor intend doing a days work in their lives are living in houses way beyond their means, houses that these people who do work could never dream of living in.
> Is that right?


No it's not right and I agree with you 100%. I wish there were a system which could benefit the genuinely needy and would penalise anyone who tried to cheat on it. I think a lot could be tightened up, but I don't think it's possible to totally eliminate benefit fraud - unfortunately there will be people who will find their way around whatever system any government puts in.

What I always find really, really annoying though is that whenever any government tries to tighten up the system, the only ones who seem to suffer are the ones who genuinely need the help. They get all the cuts, and are much worse off, and the ones who are bucking the system seem to go from strength to strength. Not good at all


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

pacey63 said:


> sooner he is gone the better. i happen to be lucky enough to have a job and have worked since i left school, all except one 18 month period. which was hell, *i do remember though not having 2 pennys to scratch my backside with, *


Must wash all my change


----------

