moosebreath

Genuinely scary he thinks this way when there's 40+ years of scientific research to show depression is a genetic disorder that's very, very difficult to cure.

Is withdrawing from society considered a good way to combat depression, then? Is there any evidence that being productive and engaging with the world makes depression worse?

 

Certainly not on both counts to my knowledge.

I'm taking it you're probably not a doctor. Any other medical issues you wish to pass judgement on? let them try to walk off a broken leg.

Oh the old 'I disagree with you therefore you must not know what you're talking about' argument.

Makes me laugh how people earning just over £40k are being described as "rich". You can barely afford to buy an average house with that. In the South East you'd be living in a shoe box. And believe it or not most of us do have to pay for our housing out of our own pockets.

I think a few sensible people would back some changes to the welfare system if it wasnt simply a case of cost cutting for the poor to provide for the rich through a reduction in higher rate income tax,corporation tax etc.

Most people should be aware of this by now as we have created both an underclass and an ever increasing group of working poor.

Where the right wing argument always falls flat on its face is that the short term pursuit of a quick buck always costs the country much more through high unemployment,increases in health problems,drug addiction and large increases in social unrest and ever more violent behaviour. Families fall apart and the state always has to provide the funds and support as private businesses always are profit driven rather than providing a social service.

In short,if you support this behaviour you are a) not very intelligent b) a complete cunt or c) all of the above.

The increase in the higher rate tax threshold affects people earning about £40k. That's your average successful tradesman or bog standard professional. Far from being the super rich out to make a quick buck, these are people who have worked hard over many years to build their careers, they're the everyday people whose everyday toil runs this country. Why shouldn't they be allowed to keep a bit more of what they earn?

And the 100's of thousands that cant provide for themselves because they're mentally ill, what about them?

 

I'm getting sick of asking to be honest

I think that lots of people suffering from mental illnesses such as depression would seriously benefit from getting out into the world and being productive. The last thing these people need is to be given an excuse to completely give up engaging with the world. That will just make them worse.

Would you agree that you're an absolutely terrible human?

 

I guess what I'm getting at is, are you one of those right wing cunts that has no problem with people dying in order for you to keep a few quid more, or do you genuinely feel that your ideology is good for society as a whole?

I think that almost everyone is capable of providing for themselves, and would be fundamentally happier doing so than living on hand outs. I think a healthier, more productive society is better for everyone. Anything we can do to promote personal responsibility is a good thing. Bringing up generations to rely on hand outs does nobody any good at all.

You have completely ignored the bit about why some (probably lots) of people dont work. They have mental issues. They might have been abused, kicked out of home as teenagers etc. You're happy for these people to be caught in the crossfire??

 

You need to think it through.

 

Christ on a bike, there are people here planning a revolution based on your view

I didn't ignore that at all, I acknowledged that there are people who "genuinely need" welfare.

The problem with this is that there are plenty of people who might physically be able to work, mentally cant. At least they cant work for any length of time. Not because they are lazy or scroungers but have some form of mental illness. That is something that needs addressing.

 

The other problem is it is not for government to dictate what people cant spend their money on as long as its legal, regardless whether its money earned through work or benefits.

 

In an ideal world we would be able to isolate those that are indeed scroungers and pay them less in benefits and those that are not and pay them more. Until there is a sure fire way of doing this you have to treat them as legitimate needy.

There is certainly a balance to be found between providing welfare for those who genuinely need it and not making welfare so easy to access and so comfortable to live on that perfectly able people choose to go on welfare as a lifestyle choice.

 

That's if we're looking at welfare state as being 'clean' and uncorrupted. The reality is that labour have been using it to buy votes for many years, so it is now a long, long way from being the safety net it was originally intended to be. We need to get tough on benefits to flush out all of the cheats and the feckless. That might mean a very small number of genuine claimants get caught in the crossfire, but it has gone so far in the wrong direction that these occasional unfortunate circumstances are preferable to continuing to bankrupt the country to pay for swathes of people to spend all day down the boozer drinking beer and smoking fags.

Hahahah. Rationing. As if being on benefits is somehow a life of luxury as it is. moosebreath, what you're saying is borderline fascist. People need to have something other than rations or there'd be depression and suicide rates skyrocketing up and down the country. Not to mention the rise in crime. It's way too over the top of an idea. There has to be some money included so that people have at least something else, even if it's minimal. I mean if not, you're basically admitting that this place is a fucking prison of a reality, and that you'll notice that fact instantly if you end up out of work.

 

This might be what even the fascists themselves realise. If there's just rations the loss in money would be greater because of the chaos that would follow. They'd probably try something similar though if they thought they could get away with it.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed anything else. They should be allowed whatever they want in life, they just have to earn it and pay for it themselves like everybody else.

Well, you only have to read the post he made to know why he's doing it. He said so. Basic rations. Why should he be spending his hard earned money, etc. He also spoke about Labour paying people to be in the pub.

 

He's not suggesting it as an act of benevolence and kindness.

I believe in rationing because I believe the welfare state should be a safety net and not a lifestyle choice. I believe that life on hand outs should be plain and joyless, so as to serve as an appropriate incentive towards getting people back into work, back earning money, feeling good about themselves and enjoying their lives. In that way I do feel rationing is benevolent albeit indirectly.

 

Long term it's certainly going to have a lot more positive impact on people's lives than trapping them into perpetual dependency which is all left wing welfare policies are ever going to achieve.

Yes, that is a Lib Dem policy they're now trying to take credit for.

 

Everyone remembers Cameron saying that that policy would be unaffordable in the leaders debates before the last election.

Yes and he changed his mind and put it through. Here we have a PM willing to listen to and act upon alternative viewpoints.

 

Personally I find it amazing that they've managed to cut spending while reducing the tax burden on millions and grow the economy while creating an unprecedented number of jobs. It's incredible how well this government has done.

You're more than welcome to. As soon as you address my point, I might dedicate 5 minutes to replying. If you're going to Parrott some thoughtless shit about paying people to be in the pub, you Jon Gaunt wannabe, I'm not interested.

Remind me what point you wanted me to address and I will.

Why not just prove it with some statistics? You gigantic collapsing egg cunt.

Because the statistics on average wage don't break down into salary bands, otherwise I'd love to.

Do you find yourself dribbling a lot?

I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

Labour councils sanction mass child rape? Well, you've got to try to win the Tory vote over somehow.

You're going to pretend you missed the whole Rotherham debacle?

Are you talking about the same people who are on frozen and shrinking wages and paying more vat? Wahoo. Thanks.

Average wages increases are behind inflation but that's mainly because most of the new jobs are low paid as those previously paid by labour to be down the boozer all day are actually having to work under this government, and since labour didn't care about these people's long term prospects, most of them are low skilled, hence low paid, hence average wages staying low.

 

I'd bet good money that wages for skilled workers has been increasing rapidly in the last 18 months, the average is being held down due to the slack in the Labour market created intentionally by labour now being taken up.

 

Also pension auto-enrolment was effectively a 1% pay rise for a lot of people, which if reflected in the average wage figures would mean they are now smashing inflation, and things will logically only get better as long as we allow the current government to continue their superb track record of repairing and growing the economy.

Dunno, wonder if they'd give it all back though to have working street lights and their bins collected more than once a month?

Good question, my guess would be that it would get a resounding no from pretty much everyone. It certainly would from me.

Would any regular person actually be better off under the Tories? I think that's become a bit of e myth down the years. Maybe if you're pulling in 100k a year you might have a few extra quid in your pocket, but the Tories now are like the Republicans in the States, maintaining a pretence of small government, lower taxes and more power to the individual, when actually all they are is a party of big business, extreme wealth and influence.

How about the millions of people on low to medium who have benefited from unprecedented increases in the level of the tax free allowance?

 

In one stroke that policy did more for those on low to mid salaries than labour did in their entire time in office. These modern tories are pretty socialist for a supposed right wing party, aren't they?

Will Tory MP's get Smartcards too ? No using Child Brothels, no trips to Sadomasochistic Clubs, no Smart phones to send pictures of your nads to undercover journalists. Champagne suppers in the finest restaurants. High quality drugs etc etc....

 

Even if they did it would be weaseld onto expenses or paid for with their vast personal wealth. The money from Mummy and Daddy and shadey dealings didn't make itself you know. Hurrah !

 

I know not all Tories are cunts. Just the cunts are.

Child brothels on expenses by the tories? Lol. Ironic given what we now know about how labour councils sanction mass child rape and how a labour government presided over the largest pilfering of expenses scandal in history.

Labour will just use my hard earned cash to buy votes from poor people while simultaneously trapping them into welfare dependency causing long term social and economic problems. None of the fringe parties are credible, especially not the greens who would run this country into the ground. So I'm left with the conservatives, and I suppose the government that has dragged us out of the gutter into becoming the fastest growing economy in the developed world is not a bad option to have.

That's funny, I'm sure she's spending all this time, money and effort because it's "unnecessary" and not because the field of work she wants to train in are asking for it.

 

Also that's not what you said before, Is it? You said something along the lines of there are plenty of opportunities for anyone in this country aslong as they work for it. Or something along those lines, nicely "batted away."

The average person doesn't require a masters before they start getting opportunities. I think providing funding in the form of cheap loans and grants up to undergraduate level already provides for the majority who want to go down that route. A masters is extra, I would expect it to be funded either by the individual or commonly by an employers, just like your average post degree professional qualification.

Your last paragraph is simply not true. My partner finished top of her class at JMU and didn't just get a first she smashed it! She wanted to do her masters last year but couldn't. Her masters course at Hope was £7k she's now doing it at Edge Hill for around £5k and I've just taken a second job on to help her out.

 

These scholarships you mention? She was told it would be a £500 discount for a first which was then reduced to £200. Oh whilst we are at it she isn't getting student finance, she has to pay it as she goes along as her degree is already on finance.

 

Nice way for the government to treat some of the brightest minds in a uni.

 

Start putting some sources up to your ridiculous unsubstantiated claims and some, not all, might start taking you a little more seriously.

I wasn't talking about masters level. They are usually unnecessary so I can see why they don't attract as much funding as undergrad.

So, just so I know, it's either indulging the whim of every person in the land or austerity. Yeah? There's no other way, there's no other way?

No, that's not what I said.

 

Anyway, I've got to get off to sleep. Another long and busy day at work awaits.

 

 

What a dismal, cruel existence you must live. Have never met a right winger that wasn't a hypocritical selfish cunt lacking in imagination, empathy, and any of the nobler qualities of the human spirit.

I've met some left wingers who are capable of appreciating that the country does not have an unlimited supply of money that can be used to indulge every whim of every person in the land, but rather a limited supply that needs to be apportioned carefully to provide maximum possible value, and therefore benefit, for the whole country. Apparently they don't post on here though.

I think some of you miss the social out of socialism. Pretty abusive.

Always the way, I don't think I've ever had an online conversation with a leftist/socialist crowd where they haven't become very spiteful and aggressive as soon as they are challenged. I've always thought it's probably a case of the truth hurting and the old true colours, shining through. Personally I just try to rise above all the childish insults and keep the debate on track.