I could get behind revising food stamps to be bags of staple foods as long as the recipients were also given instructions on how to turn flour and other basics into healthy foods. Just handing out bags of beans, rice and flour is not a solution.
I could get behind revising food stamps to be bags of staple foods as long as the recipients were also given instructions on how to turn flour and other basics into healthy foods. Just handing out bags of beans, rice and flour is not a solution.
Yea I picture people using bags of beans as bean bag solutions...With then large rodent problems.
I recall there was a huge push on digging out endemic abuse of the benefits system by the government. I recall at one point about half a million people were removed from disability benefits they were fraudulently claiming. I'd have to dig for a more reputable source, though, so grain of salt.
You first, you claimed that it did not need fixing :^ Also thats bollocks and you know it.
Part of the problem is that the government doesn't really have all the details themselves. Its a big political item that can massively influence an election. Labour don't want to be seen to have fucked it up, which they did, and the Coalition doesn't want to make cuts to the wrong sectors, which they are.
One can assume that a system that large is being abused. It just makes sense. The question is whether or not it is worth the cost to eliminate that abuse.
There is a system. You claim it's being abused. I see no evidence of this. The default position is that it is not being abused.
That is stupid. Boy that Germany is looking good! I bet there is nothing going wrong there. Are you Neville Chamberlain?
Edit; Also in that vain of thought, That Stalin fellow might be a bad egg but look at how strong it is!
How can you come out with a statement like that?
Double Edit;
One can assume that a system that large is being abused. It just makes sense. The question is whether or not it is worth the cost to eliminate that abuse.
I would say that it is worth while but needs balancing and refining. Case in point a Welsh Uni student does not have to pay fees an English student does even if they are in a Welsh uni. This is despite heavy subsidisation of Wales and its education system. Part of the problem is that the UK has gotten used to the benefit system and the idea of entitlement. Now it has gotten to the point where people expect it rather than deserve it.
There is a system. You claim it's being abused. I see no evidence of this. The default position is that it is not being abused.
Then you're not looking, Rym. The UK government itself openly admits that in 2010, (PDF link) benefit thieves took over a billion pounds from the UK benefits system. The 2007 Welfare Reform act was introduced largely to provide greater power to the DWP, to enable them to better combat the endemic benefit fraud of the time. The DWP Secretary notes that the claiming of disability benefits has risen completely out of step with actual rates of diagnosed disabilities, and that about a half million claimants are claiming fraudulently. Two articles reporting as such from the Telegraph - One and Two.
It might be a perfectly valid position to take - that there is no problem when you see no evidence of a problem - in some circumstances but when the reason you're not seeing any evidence of a problem is because you're actively ignoring the existence of any evidence, suffice it to say your chosen position may require some reexamining.
Wait, but I did this while I was slacking off from proper work while my tea brewed. But that means If I take the afternoon off from taking time off I'm gonna be working all afternoon, goddammit.
Wait, but I did this while I was slacking off from proper work while my tea brewed. But that means If I take the afternoon off from taking time off I'm gonna be working all afternoon, goddammit.
You wil take the day off or by god I'll get my batman to flog you senseless!
So what percentage of the total program is the combined graft? Is it primarily composed of people abusing disability, or other programs?
In the US, the evidence against social programs like food stamps is almost entirely anecdotal.
This is not the US don't use anecdotal evidence on systems that are entirely different to your own.
So what percentage of the total program is the combined graft? Is it primarily composed of people abusing disability, or other programs?
I can't tell you, as the government has not yet released the full numbers to the public, at least that I've found. We only have what we can glean from released reports and media reports regarding the topic.
Are you changing your position from your initial statement to Ampersand regarding his argument that the UK benefits system does get abused, "There is a system. You claim it's being abused. I see no evidence of this. The default position is that it is not being abused?" to "I see no evidence that the majority of the users of the system are claiming fraudulent benefits and abusing the system", or are you just interested?
The latter is obviously perfectly acceptable, but you know better than to try and change "I see no evidence that the system is being abused" to "I see no evidence that the majority of people are abusing the system."
In the US, the evidence against social programs like food stamps is almost entirely anecdotal.
Sure, I can go with that. Doesn't change the fact that you engaged in a brief disagreement about the UK benefits system, likely with your position based upon your knowledge of the US system(though I'm speculating entirely on that point, obviously), and it's simply not a tenable argument for the UK system.
Hell, I don't run a newspaper, but I do get the chance to glance through the green ink bin every once in a while, and holy shit, am I glad I don't have to deal with that.
Edit; Also in that vain of thought, That Stalin fellow might be a bad egg but look at how strong it is!
Hey, he won that war. He was a mass murdering fuck, but if it wasn't for him you'd have been born into the Third Reich.
Eh that is a debatable one. There were plenty of people in Russia that would have carried on the war. Also after Operation Barbarossa Russia would not have taken it lying down, now if it was before that then yeah we would have been fucked but that is the joy of speculative history. Stalin himself wasn't actually all that hot on military tactics, not that the Russian army was either, but was able to inspire dread in his commanders to get the job done. They to bear some of the blame and can't use the "I was only following orders".
Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not to prize articles which are difficult to procure is the way to keep them from becoming thieves; not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is the way to keep their minds from disorder.
Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthens their bones.
He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge and without desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them from presuming to act (on it). When there is this abstinence from action, good order is universal.
Daodejing, or Dao De Jing (道德經: 道 dào "way"; 德 dé "virtue"; 經jīng "classic" or "book") also simply referred to as the Laozi,[1][2] is a Chinese classic text. According to tradition, it was written around the 6th century BC by the sage Laozi (or Lao Tzu, "Old Master"), a record-keeper at the Zhou Dynasty court, by whose name the text is known in China. The text's true authorship and date of composition or compilation are still debated,[3] although the oldest excavated text dates back to the late 4th century BC.[1]
Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not to prize articles which are difficult to procure is the way to keep them from becoming thieves; not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is the way to keep their minds from disorder.
Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthens their bones.
He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge and without desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them from presuming to act (on it). When there is this abstinence from action, good order is universal.
Daodejing, or Dao De Jing (道德經: 道 dào "way"; 德 dé "virtue"; 經jīng "classic" or "book") also simply referred to as the Laozi,[1][2] is a Chinese classic text. According to tradition, it was written around the 6th century BC by the sage Laozi (or Lao Tzu, "Old Master"), a record-keeper at the Zhou Dynasty court, by whose name the text is known in China. The text's true authorship and date of composition or compilation are still debated,[3] although the oldest excavated text dates back to the late 4th century BC.[1]
Also known as bread and circuses, though I believe that came later
Edit; Also in that vain of thought, That Stalin fellow might be a bad egg but look at how strong it is!
Hey, he won that war. He was a mass murdering fuck, but if it wasn't for him you'd have been born into the Third Reich.
Eh that is a debatable one. There were plenty of people in Russia that would have carried on the war. Also after Operation Barbarossa Russia would not have taken it lying down, now if it was before that then yeah we would have been fucked but that is the joy of speculative history. Stalin himself wasn't actually all that hot on military tactics, not that the Russian army was either, but was able to inspire dread in his commanders to get the job done. They to bear some of the blame and can't use the "I was only following orders".
Yeah. I didn't mean to say he specifically won the war. If one person won it (which isn't true), it would probably be Molotov. Russia just gets insufficient credit in pop culture (an aspect of the Cold War I hate irrationally more than most others), so I'm a bit touchy about it.
Stalin had signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler on the condition of splitting Poland. IIRC, both sides were expecting to betray each other eventually (Stalin certainly had no intention of joining the Axis), and Hitler went first.
Comments
Part of the problem is that the government doesn't really have all the details themselves. Its a big political item that can massively influence an election. Labour don't want to be seen to have fucked it up, which they did, and the Coalition doesn't want to make cuts to the wrong sectors, which they are.
Edit; Also in that vain of thought, That Stalin fellow might be a bad egg but look at how strong it is!
How can you come out with a statement like that?
Double Edit; I would say that it is worth while but needs balancing and refining. Case in point a Welsh Uni student does not have to pay fees an English student does even if they are in a Welsh uni. This is despite heavy subsidisation of Wales and its education system. Part of the problem is that the UK has gotten used to the benefit system and the idea of entitlement. Now it has gotten to the point where people expect it rather than deserve it.
It might be a perfectly valid position to take - that there is no problem when you see no evidence of a problem - in some circumstances but when the reason you're not seeing any evidence of a problem is because you're actively ignoring the existence of any evidence, suffice it to say your chosen position may require some reexamining.
In the US, the evidence against social programs like food stamps is almost entirely anecdotal.
Are you changing your position from your initial statement to Ampersand regarding his argument that the UK benefits system does get abused, "There is a system. You claim it's being abused. I see no evidence of this. The default position is that it is not being abused?" to "I see no evidence that the majority of the users of the system are claiming fraudulent benefits and abusing the system", or are you just interested?
The latter is obviously perfectly acceptable, but you know better than to try and change "I see no evidence that the system is being abused" to "I see no evidence that the majority of people are abusing the system." Sure, I can go with that. Doesn't change the fact that you engaged in a brief disagreement about the UK benefits system, likely with your position based upon your knowledge of the US system(though I'm speculating entirely on that point, obviously), and it's simply not a tenable argument for the UK system.
by Lao-tzu
J. Legge, Translator
Government Control from the 6th Century
Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to
keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not to prize articles
which are difficult to procure is the way to keep them from becoming
thieves; not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is
the way to keep their minds from disorder.
Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties
their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthens
their bones.
He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge and without
desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them
from presuming to act (on it). When there is this abstinence from
action, good order is universal.
Daodejing, or Dao De Jing (道德經: 道 dào "way"; 德 dé "virtue"; 經jīng "classic" or "book") also simply referred to as the Laozi,[1][2] is a Chinese classic text. According to tradition, it was written around the 6th century BC by the sage Laozi (or Lao Tzu, "Old Master"), a record-keeper at the Zhou Dynasty court, by whose name the text is known in China. The text's true authorship and date of composition or compilation are still debated,[3] although the oldest excavated text dates back to the late 4th century BC.[1]