FF/FG/Green Next Government

dundalkfc10

RandomViewer wrote: »

When you start micromanaging people you are going to get a smack in the ballot box, current system keeps majority docile, mess with it and accept the consequences.

FG and Leo done a fine job of that themselves the last few years (worst election result in a century)

FF and MM are actually doing a better job at ****ing up than Leo did (We prob will never see FF in Govt again, unless the merger happens, which it will to keep Sinn Fein out)

James Brown

ELM327 wrote: »

I was not required to provide anything.
After initial sign on, I had to sign on only one other time.

I do not believe you one bit. Were they not using the post office back then?

James Brown

RandomViewer wrote: »

When you start micromanaging people you are going to get a smack in the ballot box, current system keeps majority docile, mess with it and accept the consequences.

Rightly so. Imagine losing your job and getting treated like a child with addiction problems? Imagine getting **** wages and getting state aid under the condition they tell you how to allocate the payment?

There is not one person signing on and receiving money because they don't want to work. Not one. My proof? I don't know anyone doing that. I'm open to anyone with stats showing how many people simply don't want to work and get welfare.

dundalkfc10

Bowie wrote: »

Rightly so. Imagine losing your job and getting treated like a child with addiction problems? Imagine getting **** wages and getting state aid under the condition they tell you how to allocate the payment?

There is not one person signing on and receiving money because they don't want to work. Not one. My proof? I don't know anyone doing that. I'm open to anyone with stats showing how many people simply don't want to work and get welfare.

Well i know plenty, there in every town and city in Ireland and its not just a few.

BonnieSituation

Bowie wrote: »

I do not believe you one bit. Were they not using the post office back then?

TBF to ELM it was super easy to get onto JB (and it still is as it should be) and you rarely had to sign on to regularly, plus you could get direct payments into your bank account then. JA is a different kettle of fish.

That ELm has an issue that it was too easy is what's weird.

James Brown

BonnieSituation wrote: »

TBF to ELM it was super easy to get onto JB (and it still is as it should be) and you rarely had to sign on to regularly, plus you could get direct payments into your bank account then. JA is a different kettle of fish.

That ELm has an issue that it was too easy is what's weird.

Not one question isn't believable. If you lost your job they want to know why and who it was with. If you never worked they'd want to know what you'd been doing. In either case they'd want to know where you lived, who you lived with etc. Also there's a waiting period. Complete bull. And I'm pretty sure it was paid through the post office by then, not sure though.

James Brown

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Well i know plenty, there in every town and city in Ireland and its not just a few.

They must be the only ones.
My point is it's all anecdotal and used as a ruse. I've yet to see stats on 'dem that don't want to work' and get welfare.

One of the faithful will be along shortly with numbers of homes with people not working and the welfare spend etc. but no stats on people bone idle for ****s and giggles getting welfare.

BonnieSituation

Bowie wrote: »

Not one question isn't believable. If you lost your job they want to know why and who it was with. If you never worked they'd want to know what you'd been doing. In either case they'd want to know where you lived, who you lived with etc. Also there's a waiting period. Complete bull. And I'm pretty sure it was paid through the post office by then, not sure though.

I don't think he was being LITERAL. I took it to mean that it was extremely easy.

I have similar experience myself of such scenarios.

Elmo

AFAIK between 2007 and 2010 the DSW was moving towards banking payments. This stopped and almost everyone was to collect any payments from the Post Office. There are a few exceptions to that rule such as the Back to College payment which was going directly into peoples bank accounts in 2012/2013, not sure if this has changed, but if you continued on this scheme during the summer months you had to collect from your local PO.

You need to tell the local welfare office were you live etc otherwise you wouldn't have a local welfare office.

James Brown

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I don't think he was being LITERAL. I took it to mean that it was extremely easy.

I have similar experience myself of such scenarios.

The broader narrative is if you don't want to work you don't have to, welfare will pay you. This feeds into everyone on welfare is just lazy and anyone on the housing list is pretending, with the caveat, 'some are genuine'. So saying you can walk in and get money, no questions asked needs to be challenged. The broader discussion was on how to police the money people get to stop them spending it on drink and drugs. Being unemployed isn't fun. It's also not something government can or should be pointing to to cover their arse.

They gave out pay rises and new jobs prior to their long holidays ffs.

BonnieSituation

Elmo wrote: »

AFAIK between 2007 and 2010 the DSW was moving towards banking payments. This stopped and almost everyone was to collect any payments from the Post Office. There are a few exceptions to that rule such as the Back to College payment which was going directly into peoples bank accounts in 2012/2013, not sure if this has changed, but if you continued on this scheme during the summer months you had to collect from your local PO.

You need to tell the local welfare office were you live etc otherwise you wouldn't have a local welfare office.

BTEA still goes into bank accounts. It would be such a swizz to expect a student to go to a post office to collect payments.

ELM327

Bowie wrote: »

I do not believe you one bit. Were they not using the post office back then?

They were, but due to the volumes signing on in late 08 into 2009 (the peak of the recession, I lost my job in Energy pricing) they kept delaying and pushing out signing on days for people.


You can believe or not believe, it's immaterial to me, but it was my reality in 2009

James Brown

ELM327 wrote: »

They were, but due to the volumes signing on in late 08 into 2009 (the peak of the recession, I lost my job in Energy pricing) they kept delaying and pushing out signing on days for people.


You can believe or not believe, it's immaterial to me, but it was my reality in 2009

You said not one question. I get you might have been adding for effect but we get an awful lot of anecdotal tosh regarding welfare.

Signing is different. It was weekly then every other week now it's monthly?

Imagine they gave you a list on how to spend that money, money you were due because it's assumed you'd spend it all on drink or drugs? That's what's being suggested here.

ELM327

Bowie wrote: »

You said not one question. I get you might have been adding for effect but we get an awful lot of anecdotal tosh regarding welfare.

Signing is different. It was weekly then every other week now it's monthly?

Imagine they gave you a list on how to spend that money, money you were due because it's assumed you'd spend it all on drink or drugs? That's what's being suggested here.

Entitlement nonsense. I was thankful to receive money at the time after losing my job.



I thought then and I think now, that a card with limited functionality to purchase only specific items would be best.

BonnieSituation

ELM327 wrote: »

Entitlement nonsense. I was thankful to receive money at the time after losing my job.



I thought then and I think now, that a card with limited functionality to purchase only specific items would be best.

Would you prefer a State that doesn't help out when you lose your job?

Honestly, you attitude to SW is a bit askew. I'd suggest reflecting on what your issue with it ACTUALLY is

James Brown

ELM327 wrote: »

Entitlement nonsense. I was thankful to receive money at the time after losing my job.



I thought then and I think now, that a card with limited functionality to purchase only specific items would be best.

Where do you think the money comes from? Part of taxation is used for people in the situation you found yourself. It's not the governments money to gift, it's yours, you were due it, entitled. It's the rules of society which government govern and over see on our behalf, allegedly.



If you weren't paying tax, fair enough.

ELM327

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Would you prefer a State that doesn't help out when you lose your job?

Honestly, you attitude to SW is a bit askew. I'd suggest reflecting on what your issue with it ACTUALLY is

I would prefer a state with term limits so it is only "help" and not a lifestyle choice like here and the UK

Bowie wrote: »

Where do you think the money comes from? Part of taxation is used for people in the situation you found yourself. It's not the governments money to gift, it's yours, you were due it, entitled. It's the rules of society which government govern and over see on out behalf, allegedly.



If you weren't paying tax, fair enough.

It's taxpayers money. I was paying tax before, otherwise I would not have gotten JSB (as it is contribution based)


Entitlement culture is rife. I'd much prefer to pay lower tax and not have the safety net, or have it for 6-24 months max at a time

BonnieSituation

ELM327 wrote: »

I would prefer a state with term limits so it is only "help" and not a lifestyle choice like here and the UK





It's taxpayers money. I was paying tax before, otherwise I would not have gotten JSB (as it is contribution based)


Entitlement culture is rife. I'd much prefer to pay lower tax and not have the safety net, or have it for 6-24 months max at a time

Honestly, you'd rather no social safety net for the citizenry so you can save a pittance per annum?

I'm gonna bow out now, because this bizarre right-wing crap has no place in a sane world.

KyussB

Why don't you move to a country with no social protections then? If you want economic periods of high (very-)long-term-unemployment, to lead to enormous numbers of people without any social supports, and no opportunity for a job - then I'm sure the majority of the country would not be sad to see you go.

James Brown

ELM327 wrote: »

I would prefer a state with term limits so it is only "help" and not a lifestyle choice like here and the UK





It's taxpayers money. I was paying tax before, otherwise I would not have gotten JSB (as it is contribution based)


Entitlement culture is rife. I'd much prefer to pay lower tax and not have the safety net, or have it for 6-24 months max at a time

It's a great thing for a society to have available. As in all things people will take advantage but we can amend various elements to tackle that. Looking down on people because they need aid from a source we put in place for that very need is ignorant quite frankly.

Were would Goldman Sachs and others be if welfare wasn't supplying all those rents? Think of the poor corporations...

ELM327

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Honestly, you'd rather no social safety net for the citizenry so you can save a pittance per annum?

I'm gonna bow out now, because this bizarre right-wing crap has no place in a sane world.

I'd prefer no life long benefits, yes. If that's "bizarre right wing crap" then I see why there are so many lefties cropping up.

ELM327

Bowie wrote: »

It's a great thing for a society to have available. As in all things people will take advantage but we can amend various elements to tackle that. Looking down on people because they need aid from a source we put in place for that very need is ignorant quite frankly.

Were would Goldman Sachs and others be if welfare wasn't supplying all those rents? Think of the poor corporations...

HAP is the worst part of the DSP bill.
Let there be a free market rent and that's it.

KyussB

What you've stated isn't targetting life-long benefit recipients, it's targetting all of the long-term and very-long-term unemployed - under the guise of targeting life-long benefit recipients - i.e. the typical right-wing gutter press divide-and-conquer shit, that aims to get peoples focus away from political issues that actually matter, and into meaningless issues that are intended to divide people and keep their attention focused away from people in positions of power/influence.

If people actually gave a toss about lifelong benefit recipients, they'd argue for a Job Guarantee so that they'd have no excuse for remaining unemployed (aimed at e.g. accommodation that we are critically short of, and almost anyone can be trained into work on, if they are to be long-term unemployed). Typically the best configuration for a Job Guarantee, keeps unemployment payments alongside it for those that choose not to enter the JG, though.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

Where do you think the money comes from? Part of taxation is used for people in the situation you found yourself. It's not the governments money to gift, it's yours, you were due it, entitled. It's the rules of society which government govern and over see on our behalf, allegedly.



If you weren't paying tax, fair enough.

Lad probably has 80-90 large stuffed under the mattress.

How are ya doin buddy........aaah strugglin’ pal. .... strugglin’. :cool:

RandomViewer

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Well i know plenty, there in every town and city in Ireland and its not just a few.

Most of those guys on disability, mostly addiction and mental health issues, couldn't hold down a job no matter what,
if there's work there's people to do it, if there isn't you sign on, current situation will see high unemployment as demand has vanished. Less debt so probably not as bad as 09,

Edgware

ELM327 wrote: »

I would prefer a state with term limits so it is only "help" and not a lifestyle choice like here and the UK





It's taxpayers money. I was paying tax before, otherwise I would not have gotten JSB (as it is contribution based)


Entitlement culture is rife. I'd much prefer to pay lower tax and not have the safety net, or have it for 6-24 months max at a time

A safety net rather than a hammock

Brendan Bendar

Edgware wrote: »

A safety net rather than a hammock

When one has occasion to visit Central Dublin one can’t but notice the amount of able bodied fully fit young men and women roaming the streets roaring and shouting into mobile phones and misbehaving on public transport.

That lot should be cleared off the streets and put to work.

That area is turning into a wasteland.

Wanderer78

Brendan Bendar wrote:

When one has occasion to visit Central Dublin one can’t but notice the amount of able bodied fully fit young men and women roaming the streets roaring and shouting into mobile phones and misbehaving on public transport.

Maybe we should be helping them with their actual needs

Brendan Bendar

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe we should be helping them with their actual needs

Maybe we are.........

Wanderer78

Brendan Bendar wrote:

Maybe we are.........

Oh I beg to differ there, plenty of people on the dole we have never truly helped, throwing them a fee quid every week isn't exactly the help they need