The myth of the "welfare scrounger"

DEFTLEFTHAND

Maybe we should we get our classes's in order in this state first. Maybe the working class should stop fcuking bitching, they should try living in the real world for once.

Benefits etc.. Waaaa!! I had a child out of wedlock give me free money!

kneemos

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Fewer jobs mean higher unemployment, that doesn't mean that their isn't welfare fraud, vast majority of people hate being on welfare and I've been on welfare for a short period in the early 90's after being laid off, it's a terrible place to be for people who want to work and I've never forgotten it, but there are people out their who make no effort and see it as a career choice so to speak, they are the people I'm taking about not genuine people who want to work but can't get it, defending everyone on welfare is disingenuous, it's tightening up but is still only scratching at the surface and its the elephant in the room for this government who don't appear to want to take it on, meanwhile the taxpayer is getting screwed!

A tiny minority are scroungers and only a drop in the ocean overall.

Wanderer2010

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Maybe we should we get our classes's in order in this state first. Maybe the working class should stop fcuking bitching, they should try living in the real world for once.

Benefits etc.. Waaaa!! I had a child out of wedlock give me free money!

Are you for real? Who the hell cares about having a child out of wedlock in this day and age? Look at the calender its 2013 not 1943..

DEFTLEFTHAND

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Are you for real? Who the hell cares about having a child out of wedlock in this day and age? Look at the calender its 2013 not 1943..

Is it the states responsibility to pay for said child? No it's not, it's up to the parents to provide. I work for my kid I don't rely on hanouts.

Wanderer2010

^ Yeah but what has being married or having a kid out of marriage got to do with it? There are plenty of married couples out of work who cant provide for their kids just as there are plenty of couples with kids out of work who can barely make ends meet. They are not all scroungers. Most couples with kids these days arent married, that era is long gone.

bette

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Is it the states responsibility to pay for said child? No it's not, it's up to the parents to provide. I work for my kid I don't rely on hanouts.

The poor child will need a pram! It will also need other stuff that the mother may not be able to afford because the sperm donour wont contribute. The taxpayer should show some solidarity and compassion! Selfish.

The King of Moo

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Maybe we should we get our classes's in order in this state first. Maybe the working class should stop fcuking bitching, they should try living in the real world for once.

Benefits etc.. Waaaa!! I had a child out of wedlock give me free money!

What the hell are you talking about? Do you know what the word "working" means?

What a stupid, crass, snobbish thing to say about an entire social class, the entire nature of which you obviously don't understand.

The modern "I'm going to act like an inveterate snob and hardcore right-winger to rebel against the liberal pinkos" attitude boggles my mind.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The King of Moo wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? Do you know what the word "working" means?

What a stupid, crass, snobbish thing to say about an entire social class, the entire nature of which you obviously don't understand.

The modern "I'm going to act like an inveterate snob and hardcore right-winger to rebel against the liberal pinkos" attitude boggles my mind.

I'm just telling things how I see, I was was brought up in a middle class family. Why don't you try living in the real world, there is a class divide whether you like it or not. It's not crass or snobbish it's just true.

The King of Moo

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I'm just telling things how I see, I was was brought up in a middle class family. Why don't you try living in the real world, there is a class divide whether you like it or not. It's not crass or snobbish it's just true.

I live in the real world, and was brought up by working-class parents who worked hard to provide for my siblings and me.

You're entitled to your snobbish opinion, and I'm equally entitled to tell you that it's wrong and ignorant. The way you see things has nothing to do with the facts, which show that most working-class people are regular, non-scary people, which you don't notice because they don't stand out as much as the small number of people who get you and others frothing at the mouth.
You also seem to be committing the error of confusing working-class people with the long-term unemployed, which is odd.

There's no serious class divide in this country. Of course we have different socio-economic levels, and some people consciously choose to associate themselves with some of them, but there's no class warfare.
There is a very small number of people who don't feel the need to work for a living, and there's a small number of people who are insecure and need to find reasons to look down on others in order to tell themselves and others that they're worthwhile people, and better than the ones they see earning less money than they do. But there's no serious inequality in an everyday sense.
You've probably been led astray by cynical elements in the media who wish to create the impression that there's a divide between nice, respectable middle-class people and hordes of savage poor people threatening their very existence. This is compounded by the fallacy whereby you notice the more extreme examples, and don't notice the ordinary people who work hard for a living and don't stand out from the crowd, or the unemployed jobseekers who don't prowl the streets hassling people.
I personally don't see how people can let themselves be influenced so easily into taking up positions that so clearly conflict with the facts, but that's just me.

And finally, you are a snob. You make unfounded negative generalisations about an entire socio-economic group generally considered to be on a lower level than your own. That unarguably makes you a snob.

Patrick2010

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Is it the states responsibility to pay for said child? No it's not, it's up to the parents to provide. I work for my kid I don't rely on hanouts.

Take it you don't claim childrens allowance then?, fair play.

Tiddlypeeps

The King of Moo wrote: »

I personally don't see how people can let themselves be influenced so easily into taking up positions that so clearly conflict with the facts, but that's just me.

It's called confirmation bias, all humans do it, it's just how our brains work. It's pretty difficult to make a conscious decision to try not to do it because it happens at a subconscious level.

Animals do it to, there was a really cool study on this done called Skinners Pidgeons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstitious_Pigeons . Recently Derren Brown pretty much repeated the same experiment with humans.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The King of Moo wrote: »

I live in the real world, and was brought up by working-class parents who worked hard to provide for my siblings and me.

You're entitled to your snobbish opinion, and I'm equally entitled to tell you that it's wrong and ignorant. The way you see things has nothing to do with the facts, which show that most working-class people are regular, non-scary people, which you don't notice because they don't stand out as much as the small number of people who get you and others frothing at the mouth.
You also seem to be committing the error of confusing working-class people with the long-term unemployed, which is odd.

There's no serious class divide in this country. Of course we have different socio-economic levels, and some people consciously choose to associate themselves with some of them, but there's no class warfare.
There is a very small number of people who don't feel the need to work for a living, and there's a small number of people who are insecure and need to find reasons to look down on others in order to tell themselves and others that they're worthwhile people, and better than the ones they see earning less money than they do. But there's no serious inequality in an everyday sense.
You've probably been led astray by cynical elements in the media who wish to create the impression that there's a divide between nice, respectable middle-class people and hordes of savage poor people threatening their very existence. This is compounded by the fallacy whereby you notice the more extreme examples, and don't notice the ordinary people who work hard for a living and don't stand out from the crowd, or the unemployed jobseekers who don't prowl the streets hassling people.
I personally don't see how people can let themselves be influenced so easily into taking up positions that so clearly conflict with the facts, but that's just me.

And finally, you are a snob. You make unfounded negative generalisations about an entire socio-economic group generally considered to be on a lower level than your own. That unarguably makes you a snob.

I know that a self employed member of the middle class is entitled to jacksh1t. We work for our survival, we struggle and suffer everyday, we worry ourselves to sleep every night. What generalisations did I make? The working class are under the middle class that's how a class structure works, boo hoo there's still a class divide.


Get a grip man, the working class have it easy in this country.

dark crystal

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Get a grip man, the working class have it easy in this country.

Having never been a member of the working class, how would you know how easy or hard they have it?

My name is URL

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Is it the states responsibility to pay for said child? No it's not, it's up to the parents to provide. I work for my kid I don't rely on hanouts.

Do you still accept the children's allowance though? Does the fact that you don't actually 'rely' on it make you feel better about accepting it?

Bannasidhe

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I know that a self employed member of the middle class is entitled to jacksh1t. We work for our survival, we struggle and suffer everyday, we worry ourselves to sleep every night. What generalisations did I make? The working class are under the middle class that's how a class structure works, boo hoo there's still a class divide.


Get a grip man, the working class have it easy in this country.

Are there no 'working class' self employed people then?

What exactly constitutes 'middle class'?

Is my struggling to survive self employed carpenter nephew 'working class' or 'middle class'? Should I be scorning him for being the former or praising him for being the latter?

He can't possibly be 'working class' as I am solidly middle class and it would be impossible for us to be members of the same family as being 'working class' would mean he is 'under me'....

Reekwind

The King of Moo wrote: »

There's no serious class divide in this country. Of course we have different socio-economic levels, and some people consciously choose to associate themselves with some of them, but there's no class warfare

There's a contradiction here. An absence of "class warfare" does not mean that there is no "serious class divide" in Ireland. England, for example, has a pretty yawning class chasm yet is not seriously challenged by "class warfare"

The degree to which people people self-identify with a particular class is debatable (in contrast to England, Ireland has a relatively low level of class consciousness) but there can be little question that they exist. As is demonstrated in this thread; DEFTLEFTHAND's attitude is ridiculous but that sort of snobbery is not uncommon in certain parts of the country

The working class are under the middle class that's how a class structure works... the working class have it easy in this country.

Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Not unless the middle class have it even easier, which I don't think was your point

The King of Moo

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The working class are under the middle class that's how a class structure works, boo hoo there's still a class divide.

Every country has a class structure, it doesn't mean you're better than people who earn less than you.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I know that a self employed member of the middle class is entitled to jacksh1t. We work for our survival, we struggle and suffer everyday, we worry ourselves to sleep every night. What generalisations did I make?

These two, for a start.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Get a grip man, the working class have it easy in this country.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Maybe we should we get our classes's in order in this state first. Maybe the working class should stop fcuking bitching, they should try living in the real world for once.

Benefits etc.. Waaaa!! I had a child out of wedlock give me free money!

I honestly can't believe you don't see the irony in complaining that some of the middle classes have to work hard, but the working classes apparently don't have to work hard, don't "live in the real world" and (again, the irony is strong with this one) complain all the time.

Seriously, are you actually thinking about what you type? I can't believe that in this century apparently intelligent adults can come up with such ignorant, hateful nonsense.

The people who want a class divide in this country are the snobs like you who want someone to look down upon, and will create obviously ludicrous fictions (the working classes don't work hard!!) in order to create some vermin they can look down upon.
Try to be more comfortable with yourself and your own life, and don't worry about what other people do with their lives, because you obviously haven't the slightest clue about their lives.

carpejugulum

kneemos wrote: »

The celtic tiger proved that we don't have scroungers,people want to work.The three or four percent unemployed we had during the tiger years was made up of the unemployable or those between jobs.

There were lots of long-term unemployed back then too.
But you ignore the other half of people on social welfare who are officially not part of the workforce thus not officially unemployed.

kneemos

carpejugulum wrote: »

There were lots of long-term unemployed back then too.
But you ignore the other half of people on social welfare who are officially not part of the workforce thus not officially unemployed.

There was barely any long term unemployed,what do you mean by lots?

kneemos

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I know that a self employed member of the middle class is entitled to jacksh1t. We work for our survival, we struggle and suffer everyday, we worry ourselves to sleep every night. What generalisations did I make? The working class are under the middle class that's how a class structure works, boo hoo there's still a class divide.


Get a grip man, the working class have it easy in this country.

You can get jsa after a means test as far as I know.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You're wrong.

Agree. They get almost 3 times as much here as they do in the uk so there is no incentive to get a job. They also have a greater prosecution rate in the uk and heavier fines and sanctions. Here someone is rarely prosecuted and when they are it's at Great expense to the tax payer and the offender gets off with a paltry fine which they're allowed to pay at rate of a few euro a week over years rather than a hard hit fine that would deter them in future.

The system here is nothing like that in the uk.

Bannasidhe

CJC999 wrote: »

Agree. They get almost 3 times as much here as they do in the uk so there is no incentive to get a job. They also have a greater prosecution rate in the uk and heavier fines and sanctions. Here someone is rarely prosecuted and when they are it's at Great expense to the tax payer and the offender gets off with a paltry fine which they're allowed to pay at rate of a few euro a week over years rather than a hard hit fine that would deter them in future.

The system here is nothing like that in the uk.

Who is 'they'?

carpejugulum

kneemos wrote: »

There was barely any long term unemployed,what do you mean by lots?

1/3 of the unemployed

It's currently about 1/2.

Bannasidhe

carpejugulum wrote: »

1/3 of the unemployed

It's currently about 1/2.

Linky?


We are 5 years into a global recession.

Being in receipt of unemployment for 1 year is considered 'long-term'.

Hardly surprising many people are 'long-term' now is it?

KwackerJack

I would say the Majority of the people on the dole are genuine.

BUT I know of 2 families who have no intentions of working what so ever, I in previous jobs have secured work for them but 'id lose to much' :rolleyes:

To much what??

But we have seen on RTE the documentaries about welfare cheats who claim and work.

Then on the other hand people who go back to work end up with less money due to travel cost, prsi, usc etc.

Its really simple.

Working : Good pay and enough to reward yourself for your hard work.

Social Welfare : Keep a roof over you head and food on the table.


But sadly its the other way around in this country.

My Fiancée's mate buys 60 fags and a case of beer every payday, that's before food, bills kids etc. Thats is not what the social is for, it is there to keep you going until you can find work.

People seem to think that its a way to live and not bother your hole working.

I cant see why Rent, Bills, school bills etc can be deducted from their pay and they rest for food and other good. It will be easy to spot who spends there money on fags and drink before there own kids and house!!

suicide_circus

So roughly there are 400,000 on the dole now during the resession and during the boom were roughly 150,000 on the dole.

I dont think anyone is stupid enough to call anyone who has lost their job a scrounger.

It is the career dolites for whom welfare is a lifestlye choice who are the target of peoples anger and rightly so.

Those physically and mentally capable work during the boom but yet were on the dole are nothing more than parasites. An they should be held to account now. Those who have worked and lost their jobs should be supported by the state. Those who have chosen not to contribute, grasping at their "entitelments", all rights and no responsibilities, these should be asked to give back to their community in return for welfare. This could take the form of mandatory education or tidying the locale etc.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who is 'they'?

Sorry, those on welfare in the UK.

theUbiq

Logical_Bear wrote: »

shut up

nothing wrong with what he is saying.. why was he banned? Single mothers with 4 kids with more money than people working 40 hours a week... what exactly did they do for this free money? Plenty of scangers on the dole for years on end just like their old man was.. Doesn't anyone else see this?

The King of Moo

theUbiq wrote: »

nothing wrong with what he is saying.. why was he banned? Single mothers with 4 kids with more money than people working 40 hours a week... what exactly did they do for this free money? Plenty of scangers on the dole for years on end just like their old man was.. Doesn't anyone else see this?

A lot of them have paid taxes.

You say there's "plenty of scangers on the dole for years on end just like their old man was." How many, roughly, is "plenty?"

theUbiq

The King of Moo wrote: »

A lot of them have paid taxes.

You say there's "plenty of scangers on the dole for years on end just like their old man was." How many, roughly, is "plenty?"

Couldn't tell you since numbers aren't freely available.. Maybe you're on the dole just like your old man?

I very much doubt the single mothers I'm referring to ever worked a day... Remember Kevin Myers article about the MOBs?? I've seen these people when living in a southside suburb recently... No rent, a car and four kids running wild. It's a lifestyle choice.