Ireland needs a taoiseach with this guys attitude

CamperMan

this is how it should be done.

http://fantasticfest.bside.com/2008/films/howtogetridoftheothers_fantasticfest2008

K-9

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I'm not long out of my teens, I would consider myself from a working class backround, and I just have to state that I really think times have changed when it comes to teen pregnancy. My eldest sibling is 8 years older than me, they had a child in their late teens and I remember all their friends having them too, even now I have friends who are in their late 20's many of whom had kids when they were younger. It was like it was the thing to do.

Looking at the people I know I think it is much less prevalent in my generation, do I know young people who have had kids or are pregnant, yes, but way less than say 10 years before it, I know a few, I know way more who haven't and I can't say the same for my late twenties friends. I hope it will continue this way and hopefully in another 10 years time it will be even less of a problem.

Finally while some people like to believe that young girls hit 13 and wait for the day that they fall pregnant so they can get that council house and claim lone parent. living the dream :rolleyes:, no young girl wants that for herself. Also of the late twenties friends who had kids young a total of 0 went on to any further education after the leaving if they managed that at all, of those around my age I know more currently in education who had kids young than I do out of, college is more accessible now than it was 10 years ago, hell I know that if I was born 10 years earlier there probably would have been no college for me.

Short answer Cameron is rich twat who has no comprehension of what it is like to work hard for a living, he was born with it in his lap. The way to combat long term social welfare recipients is to ensure that education is widely available and accessible to all. Oh and it might help if we weren't currently going through the worst economic downturn since the great depression, just sayin :rolleyes:

Indeed and your experience is backed up by facts, the teenage pregnancy rate has dropped significantly over the last decade, so the message is hitting home. There are some blackspot areas but I can't see how slashing welfare would solve these, going on welfare is a symptom of the problems those areas have.

Sunnyisland

At 16.8 per 1,000 population, Ireland again reported the highest birth rate of any of the 27 EU countries. The second highest EU birth rate was reported for the UK at 13.0 per 1,000 population. The Irish birth rate in 2001 was 15.1 per 1,000 population.

The average age of women giving birth was 31.5 years in 2010, which has increased from 30.3 years in 2001.
Almost 28% of women giving birth were aged 35 years or older, up from 22% for this age group in 2001; 3% of women giving birth were aged 19 years or less, compared to just over 5% in this age group in 2001.
Of all women giving birth in 2010, 42% gave birth for the first time, with an average age of 29.4 years for first time mothers. In 2001 the comparable figures were 41% and 27.6 years.
Of all first deliveries, 33% were to women aged 30-34 years in 2010, which compares to 27% in this age group in 2001.
Almost 33% of births were to single mothers. The average age of single mothers was 28.0 years. In 2001, just over 30% of births were to single mothers with an average age of 25.4 years.
Almost 25% of births in 2010 were to mothers born outside Ireland. In 2004, the year this information was first collected, just 16% of births were to mothers born outside Ireland. http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=3551

FWIW This study is out today,

Sean Bateman

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Calling children potential criminals because of their backround...

Oh and btw I was an "illegitimate child" although I don't know what that has to do with anything.

My point is that in circumstances where the aim is to milk the system, the illegitimate child of a working class mother is more likely to create further problems for society...that's not a slur against you...it's just a logical statement. You seem to be doing well for yourself despite the obstacles that you've faced...fair play to you.

christmas2012

Sean i dont see how you can defend a guy who evaded inheritance tax,and yet calls those who have fallen on hard times on welfare those who think they have a sense of entitlement,the pot calling the kettle black as far as i can see..

How you can go on then to say youre not slurring those from backgrounds with single mothers is beyond me,all you have done is insult those people on welfare and single mothers.

How do you propose single mothers survive if you take welfare off of them?

Sean Bateman

christmas2012 wrote: »

Sean i dont see how you can defend a guy who evaded inheritance tax,and yet calls those who have fallen on hard times on welfare those who think they have a sense of entitlement,the pot calling the kettle black as far as i can see..

How you can go on then to say youre not slurring those from backgrounds with single mothers is beyond me,all you have done is insult those people on welfare and single mothers.

How do you propose single mothers survive if you take welfare off of them?

Hi Xmas 2012

I've no axe to grind in relation to David Cameron. You have to be accurate though - In his case, no evasion took place. Tax evasion is illegal - It's stealing from the State. It's a crime. Ordering one's affairs efficiently by claiming tax reliefs is just sensible.

Nor do I have any axe to grind in relation to people who've fallen on hard times. That's what social welfare should be there for. If people need help, we help them. That's what being a society means.

But as for the scroungers - Who we all know exist - They should be hammered. Not just because they're effectively stealing from society but because they're muddying the waters and hoovering up resources which could be used to help genuine cases.

I'm all for helping the less fortunate in society - My issue is with strategic benefit claiming (e.g. having kids to claim payments) and layabouts who refuse to work.

I'm also a strong advocate of paying people vouchers rather than cash as it would mitigate people's desire to defraud.

Overflow

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Hi Xmas 2012

I've no axe to grind in relation to David Cameron. You have to be accurate though - In his case, no evasion took place. Tax evasion is illegal - It's stealing from the State. It's a crime. Ordering one's affairs efficiently by claiming tax reliefs is just sensible.

Nor do I have any axe to grind in relation to people who've fallen on hard times. That's what social welfare should be there for. If people need help, we help them. That's what being a society means.

But as for the scroungers - Who we all know exist - They should be hammered. Not just because they're effectively stealing from society but because they're muddying the waters and hoovering up resources which could be used to help genuine cases.

I'm all for helping the less fortunate in society - My issue is with strategic benefit claiming (e.g. having kids to claim payments) and layabouts who refuse to work.

I'm also a strong advocate of paying people vouchers rather than cash as it would mitigate people's desire to defraud.

I'd vote for you !

christmas2012

Vouchers where only certain shops get to do business with the state and get a steady gravy train over other shops?Its a little unfair on competing businesses not to mention those on the dole with kids,where do you suggest they should only be confined to certain shops??Why do you advocate vouchers do you work in tescos or a supermarket chain?

Sean Bateman

christmas2012 wrote: »

Vouchers where only certain shops get to do business with the state and get a steady gravy train over other shops?Its a little unfair on competing businesses not to mention those on the dole with kids,where do you suggest they should only be confined to certain shops??Why do you advocate vouchers do you work in tescos or a supermarket chain?

Surely it'd be the easiest thing in the world to introduce "the right kind" of vouchers?

up for anything

christmas2012 wrote: »

Btw i agree with him on the subject of those who have lots of kids just to get more welfare,and it should be limited to 2 children..

What measures would you put in place to tell the difference between those who have children in order to obtain welfare and those who don't?

Also if it is limited to 2 children, are you going to watch the others starve?

Sean Bateman wrote: »

So why not pay them to have hysterectemies?

I'll take two of those whatever they are!

sup_dude wrote: »

If this could be determined, perhaps a coil as opposed to a hysterectomy as a girl may get herself out of the financial situation she's in and want to have children later in life.

Jesus H Christ - patronising much! How about paid vasectomies?

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Although members of the underclasses tend to vote for Sinn Fein/ULA/Mad cap indo's.

What people in your view make up the underclasses? Nasty term by the way.

Sean Bateman wrote: »

So your family and friends milk / milked the system?....

What about all the potential criminals your family / friends spawned over the years? Who's gonna pick up the tab for their lifestyle? Ordinary decent working people - That's who. ....

Sean Bateman wrote: »

You seem to be doing well for yourself despite the obstacles that you've faced...fair play to you.

Bring back the workhouses, why don't you? :rolleyes:

You've made an awful lot of assumptions about that particular poster with absolutely no basis for them and in fact that particular poster said "Cameron is rich twat who has no comprehension of what it is like to work hard for a living". He did not say that Cameron is a rich twat who has no comprehension of how hard it is to get work, survive on social welfare etc so you can't really draw any inferences from that.

Dangerous Man

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Fitzpatricks on Grafton Street is good for those kind of shoes - You'll get a decent pair of Barkers for circa €220.

But I don't live in Ireland... is no fair. Anyway, I'm going to a local bar shortly. A group of lads are being downsized in favour of cheaper, shittier outsourced IBM types. I'll go over and comiserate with them as they're all top blokes. After that I'm going home I think - although I might venture out a little later to see if I can spot anything. Some stores near where I live stay open until 8 at night so who knows? I could be reporting back here tomorrow with good news. Everybody keep your fingers crossed.

Ave Sodalis

up for anything wrote: »

Jesus H Christ - patronising much! How about paid vasectomies?

*face palm*
Have a look at the rest of my posts and see which side I'm on... I was being sarcastic...

up for anything

sup_dude wrote: »

*face palm*
Have a look at the rest of my posts and see which side I'm on... I was being sarcastic...

Apologies and stop face palming - it will give you spots.

gerryo777

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I'd report her on the rent allowance thing but she'd be hanging around my house more often. This is the type of person we should be tackling.

So report her then and don't be coming on here whinging about it.
You said that you want to do something about it, grow a pair and do it.

Or are you not exactly sure about her finances/situation and just come on here to let off steam??

gerryo777

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Lot of eye rolling going on there...

So your family and friends milk / milked the system?

And because David Cameron's family are wealthy and he has a good education, he has no right to an opinion on how to deal with scroungers?

What about all the potential criminals your family / friends spawned over the years? Who's gonna pick up the tab for their lifestyle? Ordinary decent working people - That's who. Do people honestly think that these illegitimate children end up going to Trinity? Nope - They're the scumbags trying to rob your smartphone.

People need to get a grip - Those who scrounge should have no rights - Pay their benefits on vouchers - That'll keep them out of the pubs and off the planes to the Canaries.

Tell you what Sean, if you talked about any other section of the community, foreigners / blacks / gays etc like you do the unemployed, I would be reporting you and your IP address to the Garda.

Some of the crap you come out with is disgusting, you should take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror, you've obliviously got problems.

Helix

gerryo777 wrote: »

Tell you what Sean, if you talked about any other section of the community, foreigners / blacks / gays etc like you do the unemployed, I would be reporting you and your IP address to the Garda.

he's not talking about the unemployed, he's talking about scroungers - a much smaller group who also happen to fall under the umbrella term, but since you seem to want to be offended so desperately, you're taking it to mean every single person outside employment. which is fair enough, but it doesnt mean youre right

meoklmrk91

Sean Bateman wrote: »

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Calling children potential criminals because of their backround...

Oh and btw I was an "illegitimate child" although I don't know what that has to do with anything.

My point is that in circumstances where the aim is to milk the system, the illegitimate child of a working class mother is more likely to create further problems for society...that's not a slur against you...it's just a logical statement. You seem to be doing well for yourself despite the obstacles that you've faced...fair play to you.

The largest obsticle I faced was the fact that people refused to believe that I would do anything with myself because of my backround, I really don't care if 99% of these children grow up to do nothing with themselves, there is still a 1% who want to make better lives for themselves.

While my parents did marry after I was born the economic gap between me and my school mates was evident, (they weren't on welfare btw), the lowering of these payments is only going to widen the already too wide line between the working class and the middle, making it even harder to for children to go on to have brighter futures than there parents before them, education is currently available to all, let's keep it that way.

ArtSmart

Dravokivich wrote: »

He's not talking about people who've fallen on hard times. He's talking about people who just drifted straight into welfare.

One doesn't 'drift'.

One glides.

Ave Sodalis

Helix wrote: »

he's not talking about the unemployed, he's talking about scroungers - a much smaller group who also happen to fall under the umbrella term, but since you seem to want to be offended so desperately, you're taking it to mean every single person outside employment. which is fair enough, but it doesnt mean youre right

I think he's offended about the fact that he's being assumptious about one poster despite the fact he knows nothing about this poster, except they're upbringing.

I'm another person who's an illegitimate child and considered part of the working class. My (then teenage) parents did not have me to ''milk'' the system and my mother is now single, but not for the benefits.

gerryo777

Helix wrote: »

he's not talking about the unemployed, he's talking about scroungers - a much smaller group who also happen to fall under the umbrella term, but since you seem to want to be offended so desperately, you're taking it to mean every single person outside employment. which is fair enough, but it doesnt mean youre right

Have you read all his posts here?

He goes from paying some people to have a hysterectomy? WTF?, to

being happy enough with tax avoidance though,because it's legal.

Something wrong with his morals there I think.

gerryo777

sup_dude wrote: »

I think he's offended about the fact that he's being assumptious about one poster despite the fact he knows nothing about this poster, except they're upbringing.

I'm another person who's an illegitimate child and considered part of the working class. My (then teenage) parents did not have me to ''milk'' the system and my mother is now single, but not for the benefits.

Every child is 'legitimate', that tag (illegitimate) should be banned from civil society.
Sean probably loves it though.

ArtSmart

Dangerous Man wrote: »

But I don't live in Ireland... is no fair. Anyway, I'm going to a local bar shortly. A group of lads are being downsized in favour of cheaper, shittier outsourced IBM types. I'll go over and comiserate with them as they're all top blokes. After that I'm going home I think - although I might venture out a little later to see if I can spot anything. Some stores near where I live stay open until 8 at night so who knows? I could be reporting back here tomorrow with good news. Everybody keep your fingers crossed.

Might be an idea to check out the lads shoe size - yer never know, might get a newish pair for next to nothing off one of them - esp now they're gonna be on the scratch.

shoes for food, that's what i preach, (preacher man, de na de na, de na de nuh, nuh, nuh, preacher man, you know ye got me goin'....etc)

Sean Bateman

gerryo777 wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Lot of eye rolling going on there...

So your family and friends milk / milked the system?

And because David Cameron's family are wealthy and he has a good education, he has no right to an opinion on how to deal with scroungers?

What about all the potential criminals your family / friends spawned over the years? Who's gonna pick up the tab for their lifestyle? Ordinary decent working people - That's who. Do people honestly think that these illegitimate children end up going to Trinity? Nope - They're the scumbags trying to rob your smartphone.

People need to get a grip - Those who scrounge should have no rights - Pay their benefits on vouchers - That'll keep them out of the pubs and off the planes to the Canaries.

Tell you what Sean, if you talked about any other section of the community, foreigners / blacks / gays etc like you do the unemployed, I would be reporting you and your IP address to the Garda.

Some of the crap you come out with is disgusting, you should take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror, you've obliviously got problems.

You should read people's posts more carefully.

My issue is with:

- People who choose to sponge off the State rather than work

- People who deliberately have children or hide their partners so they can scam the social welfare system

If you've a problem with someone targeting those people, or if you think that the Gardai would be interested in rational discussion about social policy, you're the one with the problems.

How many times have I said that we as a society have a duty to look after people who have GENUINELY fallen on hard times?

ArtSmart

Sean Bateman wrote: »

You should read people's posts more carefully.

My issue is with:

- People who choose to sponge off the State rather than work

- People who deliberately have children or hide their partners so they can scam the social welfare system

If you've a problem with someone targeting those people, or if you think that the Gardai would be interested in rational discussion about social policy, you're the one with the problems.

How many times have I said that we as a society have a duty to look after people who have GENUINELY fallen on hard times?

fair nuff SB.

But the reality is this - now think about what i'm about to write.


who is 'the scrounger'? the 'dole abuser'?

Is it the young adult you was cared for, encouraged by their parents to enter into the world of work/ do well in school?

is it the college grad with a degree?

nope. it aint these


then who?


and more importantly - why?


WHY would someone want to live on an amt of money which will only offer subsistence? with no prospect of holidays, owning their own home? to want to live in a dangerous ugly estate?

unless, of course they are also criminals.

and who are they? who are the criminals? can you see them? are they well educated, well adjusted, well cared for individuals from stable loving families?

nope, they're not.


anyone who 'chooses' to live on the dole IS NOT CHOOSING.

Choice is only available to those with options. not to those with none.


let me make is clear.

no SANE, WELL ADJUSTED REASONABLY EDUCATED/ SKILLED person wants ot be on the dole permanently.

the life of a criminal is not a 'life choice'. it is a hugely risky business to be in - with the highest mortality rate. would a sane person 'choose' such a life?


But no. it's easier to reduce things down to catch-phrases - to give the 'I know a guy/ girl' nonsense. to give the exception to the rule and ignore the reality - that being on the dole, being a 'scrounger' is NOT A FUKING CHOICE!!!

Sean Bateman

ArtSmart wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

You should read people's posts more carefully.

My issue is with:

- People who choose to sponge off the State rather than work

- People who deliberately have children or hide their partners so they can scam the social welfare system

If you've a problem with someone targeting those people, or if you think that the Gardai would be interested in rational discussion about social policy, you're the one with the problems.

How many times have I said that we as a society have a duty to look after people who have GENUINELY fallen on hard times?

fair nuff SB.

But the reality is this - now think about what i'm about to write.


who is 'the scrounger'? the 'dole abuser'?

Is it the young adult you was cared for, encouraged by their parents to enter into the world of work/ do well in school?

is it the college grad with a degree?

nope. it aint these


then who?


and more importantly - why?


WHY would someone want to live on an amt of money which will only offer subsistence? with no prospect of holidays, owning their own home? to want to live in a dangerous ugly estate?

unless, of course they are also criminals.

and who are they? who are the criminals? can you see them? are they well educated, well adjusted, well cared for individuals from stable loving families?

nope, they're not.


anyone who 'chooses' to live on the dole IS NOT CHOOSING.

Choice is only available to those with options. not to those with none.


let me make is clear.

no SANE, WELL ADJUSTED REASONABLY EDUCATED/ SKILLED person wants ot be on the dole permanently.

the life of a criminal is not a 'life choice'. it is a hugely risky business to be in - with the highest mortality rate. would a sane person 'choose' such a life?


But no. it's easier to reduce things down to catch-phrases - to give the 'I know a guy/ girl' nonsense. to give the exception to the rule and ignore the reality - that being on the dole, being a 'scrounger' is NOT A FUKING CHOICE!!!

Nonsense.

Look at that earlier poster from the wrong side of the tracks who's going to college.

There are people who choose to be scroungers...that cannot be denied.

What's the solution - Sterilisation?

What do you think the solution is?

gerryo777

ArtSmart wrote: »

fair nuff SB.

But the reality is this - now think about what i'm about to write.


who is 'the scrounger'? the 'dole abuser'?

Is it the young adult you was cared for, encouraged by their parents to enter into the world of work/ do well in school?

is it the college grad with a degree?

nope. it aint these


then who?


and more importantly - why?


WHY would someone want to live on an amt of money which will only offer subsistence? with no prospect of holidays, owning their own home? to want to live in a dangerous ugly estate?

unless, of course they are also criminals.

and who are they? who are the criminals? can you see them? are they well educated, well adjusted, well cared for individuals from stable loving families?

nope, they're not.


anyone who 'chooses' to live on the dole IS NOT CHOOSING.

Choice is only available to those with options. not to those with none.


let me make is clear.

no SANE, WELL ADJUSTED REASONABLY EDUCATED/ SKILLED person wants ot be on the dole permanently.

the life of a criminal is not a 'life choice'. it is a hugely risky business to be in - with the highest mortality rate. would a sane person 'choose' such a life?


But no. it's easier to reduce things down to catch-phrases - to give the 'I know a guy/ girl' nonsense. to give the exception to the rule and ignore the reality - that being on the dole, being a 'scrounger' is NOT A FUKING CHOICE!!!

The real criminals in this country are the ones who brought it to it's knees, the bankers, the developers, the regulators and the politicians.

Because of their greed / incompetence over 450,000 people are now unemployed, that's why the welfare bill is so high and that's why bull**** threads like these get legs....

It gives people who are lucky enough to be 'middle class' and employed a forum to rant about the 'underclass' in our society.

For shame!

Sean Bateman

Wrong - Those guys are also criminals but that doesn't excuse people from educating their kids and providing them with a moral compass.

But then it's easier for bleeding heart liberals to rant and rave about Seanie Fitz than to admit that there is an underclass who'd cut your eye out for €20 a week.

Ave Sodalis

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Look at that earlier poster from the wrong side of the tracks who's going to college.

Who said they were on the wrong side of the tracks? They said they were working class...

Sean Bateman

sup_dude wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Look at that earlier poster from the wrong side of the tracks who's going to college.

Who said they were on the wrong side of the tracks? They said they were working class...

You're splitting hairs...

The poster in question referred to council houses, teenage pregnancies left right and centre, people not completing their education and children being born out of wedlock.

It's hardly off the wall to refer to that as "the wrong side of the tracks"...

Ave Sodalis

Sean Bateman wrote: »

You're splitting hairs...

The poster in question referred to council houses, teenage pregnancies left right and centre, people not completing their education and children being born out of wedlock.

It's hardly off the wall to refer to that as "the wrong side of the tracks"...

Council houses... around these parts anyway, there's an awful lot of them. Councils are fairly generous about council housing, especially during the boom times.
Teen pregnancies... it was said these were the norm and it was considered acceptable. I don't see how that would be ''the wrong side of the track'' if they were doing it because it's what they're used to.
People not completing education... fair enough
Children being bored out of wedlock... well that's definitely not the wrong side of the track. Anyone who still thinks people should be married before having children is a bit outdated as many children are born out of marriage...

Sean Bateman

sup_dude wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

You're splitting hairs...

The poster in question referred to council houses, teenage pregnancies left right and centre, people not completing their education and children being born out of wedlock.

It's hardly off the wall to refer to that as "the wrong side of the tracks"...

Council houses... around these parts anyway, there's an awful lot of them. Councils are fairly generous about council housing, especially during the boom times.
Teen pregnancies... it was said these were the norm and it was considered acceptable. I don't see how that would be ''the wrong side of the track'' if they were doing it because it's what they're used to.
People not completing education... fair enough
Children being bored out of wedlock... well that's definitely not the wrong side of the track. Anyone who still thinks people should be married before having children is a bit outdated as many children are born out of marriage...

Again, that's hair splitting.

In isolation, these things don't necessarily constitute "the wrong side of the tracks".

But combined, I don't think that it's unreasonable to call it "the wrong side of the tracks".

cursai

Fair play to cameron. stop nancying around peddling to lazy people. e200 (BASIC!!!!!!) is more than enough to live on when you have nothing to do all day. whiney liberal or ashamed overprotective scroungers will whinge only. even at that the wannabe super understanding( i emphatise) mouthpeices will secretly agree with camerons sentiment.

Ave Sodalis

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Again, that's hair splitting.

In isolation, these things don't necessarily constitute "the wrong side of the tracks".

But combined, I don't think that it's unreasonable to call it "the wrong side of the tracks".

Or they're just a victim of their own circumstances. Just because they're doing it, doesn't mean they have a choice, not really.
Take for example; a girl is pressurized to conform to social norms of her area of teen motherhood, this means she can't finish her education and she can't afford anything other than a council. I would imagine is what happens more often than not.

Ave Sodalis

cursai wrote: »

Fair play to cameron. stop nancying around peddling to lazy people. e200 (BASIC!!!!!!) is more than enough to live on when you have nothing to do all day. whiney liberal or ashamed overprotective scroungers will whinge only. even at that the wannabe super understanding( i emphatise) mouthpeices will secretly agree with camerons sentiment.

I hope, for your own sake, you don't loose your job and become one of those ''lazy people'' who ''have nothing to do all day''.

Sean Bateman

sup_dude wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Again, that's hair splitting.

In isolation, these things don't necessarily constitute "the wrong side of the tracks".

But combined, I don't think that it's unreasonable to call it "the wrong side of the tracks".

Or they're just a victim of their own circumstances. Just because they're doing it, doesn't mean they have a choice, not really.
Take for example; a girl is pressurized to conform to social norms of her area of teen motherhood, this means she can't finish her education and she can't afford anything other than a council. I would imagine is what happens more often than not.

Sorry but that's utter nonsense.

Pressurised into being a teen mother?

Come on.

The knowledge that the State will foot the bill and the "tricks of the trade" when it comes to milking the system (passed down from mother to daughter and from sister to sister) has to be a strong motivation for these girls. Ergo, the system must be adjusted to block such abuse.

Smurph90

just dreaming but, replace dole with "debit cards" from the state. Let people spend money wherever they want but have people checking bills to see if they are spending too much on non essentials. I dont think anyone begrudges actual families/people who spend their welfare on the essentials (food,clothing) etc. It is the arseholes who collect their dole, walk next door into the bookies and then off for a pint. I see it all the time. The dole "laser card" should have a % that is allowed on personal spending. ( booze, phones, etc, socialising )

The system is too easily abused. I know someone who ****ed off to spain for the summer and he was posting all over his facebook about still being able to claim while away. hes only 20.

Ave Sodalis

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Sorry but that's utter nonsense.

Pressurised into being a teen mother?

Come on.

The knowledge that the State will foot the bill and the "tricks of the trade" when it comes to milking the system (passed down from mother to daughter and from sister to sister) has to be a strong motivation for these girls. Ergo, the system must be adjusted to block such abuse.

Yes. Pressurised. Same way as members of the Travelling Community marry at such a young age. There aren't many out to milk the system, especially when it comes to children. I have said this before and I will repeat it now... any mother in that circumstance (relying on welfare to raise a child) will know exactly how difficult it is and would only wish it on their own daughters if they didn't care about them in any way

Sean Bateman

Smurph90, that is a BRILLIANT idea.

Let's see what imaginary holes the bleeding heart liberals can find in it.

Ave Sodalis

Smurph90 wrote: »

just dreaming but, replace dole with "debit cards" from the state. Let people spend money wherever they want but have people checking bills to see if they are spending too much on non essentials. I dont think anyone begrudges actual families/people who spend their welfare on the essentials (food,clothing) etc. It is the arseholes who collect their dole, walk next door into the bookies and then off for a pint. I see it all the time. The dole "laser card" should have a % that is allowed on personal spending. ( booze, phones, etc, socialising )

The system is too easily abused. I know someone who ****ed off to spain for the summer and he was posting all over his facebook about still being able to claim while away. hes only 20.

That would be a good idea for those who had access to a bank machine and didn't get their dole money out of a post office (which can be found in most local shops)
Your friend would be wrong though. He needs to be there in person to claim.

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Let's see what imaginary holes the bleeding heart liberals can find in it.

These ''bleeding heart liberals'' are the people who actually know what the effects of many of the things proposed would do. It's called having a bit of common sense and decency.
The holes that are being poked aren't imaginary m'dear. They're genuine issues in your flawed views

sock puppet

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Smurph90, that is a BRILLIANT idea.

Let's see what imaginary holes the bleeding heart liberals can find in it.

Eh the cost? You don't know how much money it'll cost and how much it'll save.

Also for future reference liberals generally believe in free trade, low tax and low government spending.

sparksfly

Smurph90 wrote: »

just dreaming but, replace dole with "debit cards" from the state. Let people spend money wherever they want but have people checking bills to see if they are spending too much on non essentials. I dont think anyone begrudges actual families/people who spend their welfare on the essentials (food,clothing) etc. It is the arseholes who collect their dole, walk next door into the bookies and then off for a pint. I see it all the time. The dole "laser card" should have a % that is allowed on personal spending. ( booze, phones, etc, socialising )

The system is too easily abused. I know someone who ****ed off to spain for the summer and he was posting all over his facebook about still being able to claim while away. hes only 20.

Why not go one further and replace dole with work.
Why not provide unemployed people with jobs improving the community, making our country more attractive to tourists and residents and pay them to do it. I spent a weekend in Mullingar and could not get over the state of the areas surrounding our lakes, the weeds, filth and dirt was shameful, no wonder no tourists could be seen.
If I become unemployed, I would rather do something that might create a few jobs and improve the area that than scratch my hole.

The one fact in all this is that the same group of people carry the burden of payment for all this waste. The middle of the road taxpayer gets hit for it all and as one, I am getting very pissed off with the amount of parasites I am supporting.
We (borrow money from abroad) to pay for multiple benefits for one gang, guaranteed pensions, increments and unvouched expenses for others, some of those who get the highest salaries in Europe.
We have one of the highest ratios of politicians per head of population in the world. We pay handouts to travellers, wealthy farmers, roma gypsies etc.
We (especially in the private sector who create all the countries wealth) have worthless pensions that were raided by this joke of a government yet are expected to pay an ever increasing burden of tax to keep all this waste and wasters paid for.
Because the government and opposition are made up of one of these types of parasite and are afraid to tackle the many other types for fear of rousing the lobby groups or unions representing them, Joe taxpayer will continue to get screwed.

Smurph90

sup_dude wrote: »

That would be a good idea for those who had access to a bank machine and didn't get their dole money out of a post office (which can be found in most local shops)
Your friend would be wrong though. He needs to be there in person to claim.

What im saying is essentially a credit card. you pay for your stuff with the card and the % of personal spend you get as cashback. I havnt thought this through so there obviously will be problems.

I have no idea tbh how the claims work but he was posting about holiday benefit or something.

up for anything

sparksfly wrote: »

Why not go one further and replace dole with work.
Why not provide unemployed people with jobs improving the community, making our country more attractive to tourists and residents and pay them to do it. I spent a weekend in Mullingar and could not get over the state of the areas surrounding our lakes, the weeds, filth and dirt was shameful, no wonder no tourists could be seen.
If I become unemployed, I would rather do something that might create a few jobs and improve the area that than scratch my hole.

I've said it before - this business of people working for their dole to improve the community is bollix. How would you work it? Divide up the dole into minimum wage hours and then employ more people to police it and ensure dole scroungers turned up to do it? If there is a need for people to work at cleaning, weeding and ensuring community and public sites upkeep, then there is potential to turn them into proper tax paying public sector jobs that people can feel good about doing and not be made feel like they are back in the days of having to do famine relief works to keep food on the table via their social welfare debit cards. :rolleyes:

K-9

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Smurph90, that is a BRILLIANT idea.

Let's see what imaginary holes the bleeding heart liberals can find in it.

Do some analysis of it yourself. Go on, think what problems might arise.

Smidge

Fromthetrees wrote: »

There's a need for reform alright but we did have unemployment as low as 4% not too long ago, this strongly suggests that the vast majority of people want to work.

Retrain, up skill, make it easier for existing business's to operate ect ect.

Why not crack down on the ten thousand children who live abroad who are in receipt of child benefit from Ireland at a cost to the State of €20m annually or on the thousands of people who are welfare tourists first.
I'm sure there's more areas we can save money on that are fair for everyone.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/resentment-is-growing-as-the-dole-queues-get-longer-1720332.html
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ash-cloud-crisis-exposes-welfare-tourists-2245558.html

That would be seen as "racist"
And Heaven forfend that Ireland should let her slip show in that respect;)

Smidge

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

Of course he is right. Young teenage girls getting pregnant only so they can get a house and claim housing benefit. That is why there is a huge problem with the welfare system. They know the system inside and out.

About time they take some responsibility for themselves.

You know what I think it is?

I saw a pair the other day and was shocked they were on sale, considering the problems they are causing.

Those fecking self-pregnating knickers:mad:

hatrickpatrick

Look, I accept that we spend too much on Welfare, but it really saddens me that there's a bigger witch hunt and more venom directed at genuine social welfare claimants than there is against the financial class which got us into this mess in the first place.

In other words, my position is, by all means make whatever cuts are necessary to fix our economy, but not before everyone named as a crook in the tribunals and anyone who was connected to the Anglo scandals has actually had justice served, even if that jutice does indeed mean walking away freely.

It's absolutely astonishing that so many people in the country are willing to put up with that, yet spit daggers at the entire social welfare class including those who are in it through no choice or fault of their own. Seanie, Drumm, Ahern etc are far bigger monsters and should be dealt with first.

The cuts and taxes we have to endure would be a far less bitter pill to swallow if we knew that those responsible for them were being forced to pay for their roles in causing it.

Logical Fallacy

Sean Bateman wrote: »

If you had €1m in cash and you could stick it on deposit in Ireland and pay 30% DIRT on any interest or stick it on deposit in the Isle of Man and pay no tax on any interest, which would you do?

(Just a theoretical example - Not claiming that you can do this)

There is nothing legally or morally wrong about arranging one's afffairs in the most efficient way possible and in accordance with the law.

In your opinion. David Cameron expressed the opinion that it was morally wrong.

But then it turned out his Dad had done just that.

This is the issue that people have.

Mance Rayder

I dont get what people are complaining about here. Nobody said we should attack people on social welfare, we should attack the culture of social welfare scroungers who work the system. The genuine cases should always have welfare. We are talking about the underclass. What is the underclass? The class that cannot be considered working class because they have no intention of ever working, the only thing they work is the welfare system for everything they can get, they wouldnt take a decent job if it was offered to them on a silver plater. It's not an economic class, its a social class defined by lifestyle choices.

These people exist and are abundant in certain areas.

Example. A while ago I heard some women talking in Darndale, one was complaining that her Grand-daughter is pregnent at 16. The other said, "Ah well, at least she will be sorted out now with a gaff",

Thats the attitude. Thats the people we are getting at here. Nothing more nothing less.

Now I don't think a debit card for dole will work, in this world people sometimes need cash, and people on the dole should not be denied that. Why shame people into having to pay with a dole debit card? Just reform the system and make it much harder for lifers and career dole cheats to milk the system.

Oh and before people go calling me a snob, I am from coolock and Ballymun and still live there AND I am on the dole at the moment. All my neighbours are on disability, none of them are disabled.

I am constantly baffled at how often they can afford to go to the pub, They stumble past my bedroom window several nights a week, locked on the way home, where the fook are they getting the money for this? They don't work, live in council houses and drink and smoke like its going out of fashion. I am not talking 1 or 2 people here I am talking half of Ballymun. I can NEVER afford to go to the pub, and rightly so while I am on welfare.


I am also baffled that some of my non working neighbours drive modern Audis and BMW's. I have to walk everywhere or take a bus, sometimes I can't even afford the bus! The insurance on a large engine car should be beyond the means of someone on approx 10k a year dole, not to mention the fuel. These same people continue to pump out babies that they will not even attempt to raise. Expecting the state to do it for them.

Somethings gotta give here!

meoklmrk91

Sean Bateman wrote: »

ArtSmart wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

You should read people's posts more carefully.

My issue is with:

- People who choose to sponge off the State rather than work

- People who deliberately have children or hide their partners so they can scam the social welfare system

If you've a problem with someone targeting those people, or if you think that the Gardai would be interested in rational discussion about social policy, you're the one with the problems.

How many times have I said that we as a society have a duty to look after people who have GENUINELY fallen on hard times?

fair nuff SB.

But the reality is this - now think about what i'm about to write.


who is 'the scrounger'? the 'dole abuser'?

Is it the young adult you was cared for, encouraged by their parents to enter into the world of work/ do well in school?

is it the college grad with a degree?

nope. it aint these


then who?


and more importantly - why?


WHY would someone want to live on an amt of money which will only offer subsistence? with no prospect of holidays, owning their own home? to want to live in a dangerous ugly estate?

unless, of course they are also criminals.

and who are they? who are the criminals? can you see them? are they well educated, well adjusted, well cared for individuals from stable loving families?

nope, they're not.


anyone who 'chooses' to live on the dole IS NOT CHOOSING.

Choice is only available to those with options. not to those with none.


let me make is clear.

no SANE, WELL ADJUSTED REASONABLY EDUCATED/ SKILLED person wants ot be on the dole permanently.

the life of a criminal is not a 'life choice'. it is a hugely risky business to be in - with the highest mortality rate. would a sane person 'choose' such a life?


But no. it's easier to reduce things down to catch-phrases - to give the 'I know a guy/ girl' nonsense. to give the exception to the rule and ignore the reality - that being on the dole, being a 'scrounger' is NOT A FUKING CHOICE!!!

Nonsense.

Look at that earlier poster from the wrong side of the tracks who's going to college.

There are people who choose to be scroungers...that cannot be denied.

What's the solution - Sterilisation?

What do you think the solution is?

The wrong side of the tracks?, you make it sound like ****ing chechnya! Jesus it wasn't that bad.

Let's put it this way, if one of your children grew up decided that working life just wasnt for them and they were just going to sign on and get a council house etc. I will assume that that wouldn't go down very well with you or the rest of your family and social circle, this person despite all their opportunities has decided to be a scrounger.

Now let's think about a child who comes from one of dangerous council estates in ireland, growing up unlike your middle class child most of their role models will be jobless, most will have stopped put of school and very possibly none will have gone to college. Middle class kid knows that going to college is the done thing, its just what you do, kid from the bad estate knows that college is for other kids, their parents and all their aunties and uncles never went, so what's different for them.

More often than not we know that the child of a middle class person will be middle class themselves and pass that on to their children, the same goes for working class kids and so on. The way that you stop this is to break the cycle, this means that education is open to all, I think the Americans have it somewhat right in raising their children by telling them they can be anything even the president, the leader of the free world. I think that all parents should tell their kids such things but I do worry that the widening gap between the working and middle classes will mean that college is no longer accessible for those who do not come from a comfortable backround, I worry that the grants will be cut further making it impossible for some people to go to college. Education is the key here.

Also sterilisation of those who you feel are lower forms of life than yourself, Nazi Germany much?