Top trolling.

Why would you assume that anyone would have three children when they cannot afford it, rather than that they have a family when they can afford it – and then something happens to change the situation they're in (redundancy, disability, illness etc etc)?

That's not a dig, BTW, but it does suggest the effectiveness of the coalition's rhetoric – ie the idea that the majority of those on benefits are 'scroungers', not simply people whose circumstances have changed through no fault of their own?

I agree with what you say - I totally agree that to make anything like this work fairly, then there has to be safeguards in place to assist those who find themselves in need of help, after finding themselves in a situation which they have had little control over.

However, if you let me use an example, next door to my parents-in-law are a young couple (both just past 21) who presently have two young children - In the two years they have lived in this house, neither has worked, thus, unless they have had a lottery win (which seems highly unlikely seeing as they are in a council house in Warrington), I would assume they receive some benefits.

Now, if in their present situation, they decided to have a third child, couldn't that be classed as being irresponsible and very badly planned??.... Why would the Welfare State be expected to pick up the bill in that situation?

Now, while I know rags like the Daily Mail like to exaggerate the number of occasions that this type of things occur, it can't be denied that it does happen and while it would be harsh on the children it would undoubtedly effect, there has to be some sort of deterrent to try and stop it happening.

There could always be an argument for more benefits.

If benefits were limited to three children some would say 'what about those with 4 children'.

If benefits were limited to four children some would say 'what about those with 5 children'.

There has to be a point where the state isn't responsible for people's children. Benefits are for temporary hardship and should not be relied on long term.

Continually saying 'what if' to determine welfare payments is unrealistic as every hypothetical situation can not be covered off.

A balance needs to be struck between what is fair in terms of a genuine safety net and to prevent abuse of the system.

Yes.



As you rightly say, it's the children that would suffer, though – and that would possibly have long-term, negative ramifications for society.

It's not a particularly easy situation, but that doesn't alter the massive imbalance in reporting.

We know about the lies of IDS, repeated in the likes of the [iMail[/i (as you say). The former has been caught out twice by the ONS for 'exaggerated' figures, while the latter had to publish a correction for publishing claims about benefits – it then blamed Conservative Central Office in print, saying it got the data from there.

Ipsos-Mori have put out research on perceptions v reality. It's quite revealing.

[url=http://s27.photobucket.com/user/Mintball/media/Ipsos_Mori_zpsd560ddeb.jpeg.html[/url

Define "temporary hardship" and whilst doing so define how long "temporary" would be in terms of this hardship.

For instance would working tax credits (a state benefit) be classed as a "temporary hardship", or child tax credits (assuming that you understand how they are awarded), or the reasons why they are awarded in the first place, would these fall under the banner "temporary hardship" ?

Please stop referring to benefits, the correct term for what we offer the less advantaged is Social Security

He started it

Well, this would depend. It's a question which has a thousand more levels of complexity than the average muppet would ever comprehend. I'm not calling you a muppet, btw, although I would question whether you have thought this through.

The population is very quickly ageing, and we all (I think) know hat this is heading for disaster as we will not be able to pay for either the pensions or the health care of the burgeoning silver army. If I am ready to breed and raise an above-average number of young replacement worker drone, then surely I should be financially enouraged to do so so, as it make perfectly good economic sense?


A completely inappropriate example, as your Ferrari will never contribute a penny towards the economy.


So, make it a criminal offence to have children, and then within 20-30 years the country will be bankrupt beyond salvation.

Indirectly

Road Tax, Fuel Duty, tax from the money made by insurance companies, parking fines, Police penalties, M&S and Wild Bean Cafe taxes. Mechanics taxes, Ferrari taxes, Bridgestone taxes

Morr than those spongers

Economist David Blanchflower: [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/george-osborne-has-failed-the-very-tests-he-set--himself-in-2010--and-we-are-poorer-as-a-result-9006185.htmlOsborne has failed the very tests he set himself[/url

Even our right-wing muppets should be able to follow this

David "there will be 4 million unemployed" Blanchflower.

Only the loony left listen to him.

Did you consider actually responding to the article?

And there are plenty of outstanding questions that you apparently remain either unable or unwilling to answer.

I considered it for a split second but then came to the conclusion that it was just more Blanchflower doom mongering left wing bile that I could not justify wasting my valuable time replying to in detail. He appears to be just another one of those strange people that wince everyime they see the growth figures because they cannot bear to see a recovery led by a Tory chancellor.

I mean the first paragraph....

[i"At a meeting I had with George Osborne in his office in the House of Commons just before the Coalition was formed in May 2010, I told him that the recession he was inevitably going to create would eventually be his to own. That is to say he could for only so long blame Labour because chickens eventually come home to roost. [/i

Where was the 'inevitable recession' David?

Where are the four million unemployed?

Bit of a strange way to begin an article. Making a statement which is wrong. Poorly written rubbish.

I have this vision of Ajw71 stood there with hands clasped on ears, eyes tight shut,stomping on the spot and yelling at the top of their voice as they try to blot out reality.

Blanchflower has similar level of skill to you Dave O in predictions relating to the economy - zero.

Osborne DID create a recession.

He took an economy that was growing and turned that into contraction in only a few short months.

You bleat about the economy growing now and we are still not back to where we were before Osborne got his hands on the nation's money box

You see the trouble you have is you don't think before you post. Either that or as I have said before your understanding of grammar is poor. You have been trying to make the same point ever since you decided this post of mine said what you wanted it to say:

[iIn February 2013 DaveO wrote:
7. Back to the economy, its just not going to pick up that much if at all between now and the election so they won't have much success to point to.
[/i

That was in the Economy thread you stared and you were well and truly your put in your place by none other than Sal P:

[urlhttp://viewtopic.php?p=17527054&tsmp=1387208010#p17527054[/url

Where they said:

[iI am as right wing as they come - the reality in the "real world" is that this is utter rubbish, anyone who thinks the economy has shown any tangible signs of recovery is deluded.

Your thigh slapping, high-fiving shows how out of touch with reality you really are.

Osborne is the worst chancellor we have had since Healey - no doctored data will ever change that[/i

Still oh so true. As I said " its just not going to pick up that much if at all between now and the election" and that is a true statement. It has not picked up much at all and Osborne and you are running out of time.

You can deride Blanchflower all you want ignoring the data he presents and deliberately misinterpret posts on here as you did mine but all that does is show you up as incapable of arguing a point without doing just that.

If you want to educate yourself on recessions, why don't you read what Harvard Professor Jeffrey Frankel has to say on the matter [url=http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/jul/19/uk-double-dip-recession-revised-gdphere[/url. If you can comprehend it you will soon see why your childish attempts at points scoring are misplaced

I am sure you won't bother dreaming up some daft excuse as to why Frankel is not to be ignored as well and would rather keep your head in the sand where it has always been. Carry on with the tantrum.

=#4000BF[size=200WHICH ECONOMY?????[/size

Are you totally incapable of answering such a simple straight forward, no hidden agenda, question?

The economy "won't pick up that much if at all between now and the next election".

The economy has picked up - 1.9% since your statement and you are becoming more and more wrong with every quarterly growth figure published. You do realise strong growth is predicted next year don't you?

Continuing to post that you don't think you were wrong is going to become more and more embarrassing for you and just shows you up for the doom mongering poster you are. To think you accuse me of having my head in the sand.

Why don't you just admit, like Blanchflower, that you were wrong?

There has not been a recession since the Coalition has been in power. This is a fact.

Fair enough. Thank you for at least admitting that you haven't the brain power to deal with serious subjects in detail and are not even bothering to make an effort.



Jesusingwept.



















And "Coalition" is not a proper noun, dear.

I do sometimes wonder if some people even went to school.

Richard Littlejohn wrote about immigration once. That's a serious subject as well.

What was his opinion and did it tally with your own thoughts?

They re-write history so soon after the events these days, it took the neo-nazis decades to emerge from hiding.