Benefits/Welfare

Originally posted by Amaurote
Not at all - the innuendo is pretty clear. Most, many, truckloads - I'm still not seeing any evidence that benefits are promoting the kind of behaviours you're talking about, and the trend of long-term unemployment over the lat few years doesn't support your case at all.

Originally posted by Varg
[b][/i]

Very true. By associates I meant just t ...[text shortened]... g is a serious problem in an era of full employment is something only you can answer.

Successful scrounging is endemic in socialist economies since the scroungers are in effect the clients of the socialist politicians who depend on their votes to retain office.

Originally posted by Philodor
Successful scrounging is endemic in socialist economies since the scroungers are in effect the clients of the socialist politicians who depend on their votes to retain office.

In that case, the United States of America is a socialist economy.

Originally posted by Amaurote
Not at all - the innuendo is pretty clear. Most, many, truckloads - I'm still not seeing any evidence that benefits are promoting the kind of behaviours you're talking about, and the trend of long-term unemployment over the lat few years doesn't support your case at all.

Originally posted by Varg
[b][/i]

Very true. By associates I meant just t ...[text shortened]... g is a serious problem in an era of full employment is something only you can answer.

Okay, I see there's no point in continuing this further.
I meant exactly what I said, there was no insinuation, implication or whatever - if there was Redmike or Wheely would have picked me up on it.

What started out as quite a reasoned and thoughtful debate has been dragged down to your level by your willful misinterpretation.

Originally posted by Varg
What started out as quite a reasoned and thoughtful debate has been dragged down to your level by your willful misinterpretation.

Hey, I know you're your own biggest fan, but never forget, Yazz and the Plastic Population died for you, too.

Originally posted by Amaurote
Hey, I know you're your own biggest fan, but never forget, Yazz and the Plastic Population died for you, too.

Did they die for you too. whoever they may or may not be?

Originally posted by Amaurote
No we weren't - your very first post introduced a broad and discursive series of points about the welfare system and its alleged effects on society, and you focused at least one-third of even that post on disability benefit. A series of predictable innuendoes and anecdotes appeared implying that benefits feed the laziness of the poor, and in that context I ...[text shortened]... I don't see anyone here advocating that the employed receive jobseekers' allowance.

I didn't see any inuendos in Varg's post. I thought he made his point reasonably and honestly. I can't quite see what the problem is here.

Originally posted by Wheely
I didn't see any inuendos in Varg's post. I thought he made his point reasonably and honestly. I can't quite see what the problem is here.

Seriously? To take just the nearest example that lies to hand, have another look at those inverted commas in his very first post and tell me there's no insinuation in sight. If these insinuations can be backed up, fine - but at no point is substantive evidence adduced to back them up, just anecdote and unverifiable statements. Sorry, but we've been here before with Varg - you be as generous as you like, but I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Originally posted by Amaurote
Seriously? To take just the nearest example that lies to hand, have another look at those inverted commas in his very first post and tell me there's no insinuation in sight. If these insinuations can be backed up, fine - but at no point is substantive evidence adduced to back them up, just anecdote and unverifiable statements. Sorry, but we've been here bef ...[text shortened]... with Varg - you be as generous as you like, but I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Analysing Varg's post to death would be a bit unfair considering what some people get away with. However, it seems to me, with inverted commas he is being sarcastic, registering his complaints about those that claim disability benefit when they shouldn't be. He isn't saying everyone is doing this in my view.

Or, are you saying that there are no cheats?

Originally posted by Wheely
Analysing Varg's post to death would be a bit unfair considering what some people get away with. However, it seems to me, with inverted commas he is being sarcastic, registering his complaints about those that claim disability benefit when they shouldn't be. He isn't saying everyone is doing this in my view.

Or, are you saying that there are no cheats?

I disagree entirely. I think he's implying just about as much as he can get away with without the niggling inconvenience of supplying evidence for his libels. Keeping them indirect like that is a very handy way of poisoning the debate without leaving himself open to direct refutation. If you like this kind of approach, all power to you, but don't be surprised when not all of us prove equally tolerant.

Originally posted by Amaurote
I disagree entirely. I think he's implying just about as much as he can get away with without the niggling inconvenience of supplying evidence for his libels. Keeping them indirect like that is a very handy way of poisoning the debate without leaving himself open to direct refutation. If you like this kind of approach, all power to you, but don't be surprised when not all of us prove equally tolerant.

I understand what you mean and to be honest, I was rather surprised at Varg's restraint. However, personally I'd rather debate his post, using the words he wrote rather than what I think he might really be saying.

Some people seem to present strong views in order to "balance", as they see it, other people's views and I suspect Varg could be one of these but for me, as I say, what he writes is what I'd rather debate.

Originally posted by Amaurote
I disagree entirely. I think he's implying just about as much as he can get away with without the niggling inconvenience of supplying evidence for his libels. Keeping them indirect like that is a very handy way of poisoning the debate without leaving himself open to direct refutation. If you like this kind of approach, all power to you, but don't be surprised when not all of us prove equally tolerant.

You have clearly been defeated by Varg in this debate so far, so why don't you just acknowledge it instead of shilly-shallying around with 'red herring' arguments?
You are giving the impression that you are defending benefit scrounging as an alternative lifestyle to working for a living.

Originally posted by Wheely
Analysing Varg's post to death would be a bit unfair considering what some people get away with. However, it seems to me, with inverted commas he is being sarcastic, registering his complaints about those that claim disability benefit when they shouldn't be. He isn't saying everyone is doing this in my view.

Or, are you saying that there are no cheats?

Cheats is the wrong word here.

There are too many people who feel sorry for themselves and feel like the state should support them.

Just because you have a disabled child doesn't mean the council must house you.

A lot of people on benefit "fit" themselves into the system rather than fiddle the system.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Socialism is bad. Bad all around. I understand that there really are truly needy people, for whom society should look after. But there's too much of it now. For one, socialism requires much higher tax rates - meaning that the hard workers subsidize the lifestyles of people who don't want to work. The government's also denying a man the fruits of hi ...[text shortened]... aning a much bigger house because we kept our money instead of giving it to the government.

Getting a sense of satisfaction through your hard WORK is important.

One should feel delightful happiness through one's achievement. One should also feel happiness by supporting those who close to adequately, and making contributions to the society.

Benefits/welfares system should be there to support those who need temporal help due to ill-health or other reasons such as pregnancy or redundancy. Benefits office and employers should both encourage those left their work temporalily to return as soon as they recovered.

As for those lazy ones who do not care to seek for job, they need proper guidance, training and psychology-based therapy. Council could give them jobs, such as maintence and cleaning of public toilets, rabbish collecting or removing graffities. Alternatively, those can be adviced to join military army if they are young and fit. In anyway, those lazy and exploitive people should not be ignored because they can potentially become criminals. Boredom is a devil's plaything.

Am I being unrelaistic and too optimistic?

Originally posted by Philodor
You have clearly been defeated by Varg in this debate so far, so why don't you just acknowledge it instead of shilly-shallying around with 'red herring' arguments?
You are giving the impression that you are defending benefit scrounging as an alternative lifestyle to working for a living.

I'm not taking oh-so-neutral arbitration from a nitwit who can't spell either of his two chosen usernames correctly. As for your second point, I can't help it if nuance is a forgotten concept on the right.

Originally posted by Amaurote
I disagree entirely. I think he's implying just about as much as he can get away with without the niggling inconvenience of supplying evidence for his libels. Keeping them indirect like that is a very handy way of poisoning the debate without leaving himself open to direct refutation. If you like this kind of approach, all power to you, but don't be surprised when not all of us prove equally tolerant.

I don't believe all claimants are cheats.
I thought I made that perfectly clear.
I don't even believe most claimants are cheats.
I do, however, believe that those unemployed for more than a year or two are not trying hard enough to find a job.