Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: IDS is incompetandant
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
andrew |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In The Know (as always) wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Considering that we are told that the funds have ran out, and there is nothing to spare, we seem to be spending an awful lot on non essentials.
You call keeping those in work (ie those who pay ALL the bills) "non-essential" ?
WHERE would the money come from?
There are plenty of people in a queue for every job, so it wont make a difference except to save on childcare.
If we are going to subsidise mothers I would rather the money was to encourage them to stay home and look after their own children (as most say they would prefer) which in my opinion is better for the child and better for society.
The principal remains the same if you are rich, poor, on the dole or working. Stand on your own two feet if you are able to, and take care of those who cant.
We don't need to encourage more births, and if food and shelter for families is considered "non essential" by the welfare system I am sure that paying to keep children in miserable packs to be ignored all day by gum chewing half-wits is even less essential.
Honey can you get take over IDS, Pattaya can have Ester Mcvey's job ? |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
In The Know (as always) wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Considering that we are told that the funds have ran out, and there is nothing to spare, we seem to be spending an awful lot on non essentials.
You call keeping those in work (ie those who pay ALL the bills) "non-essential" ?
WHERE would the money come from?
There are plenty of people in a queue for every job, so it wont make a difference except to save on childcare.
If we are going to subsidise mothers I would rather the money was to encourage them to stay home and look after their own children (as most say they would prefer) which in my opinion is better for the child and better for society.
The principal remains the same if you are rich, poor, on the dole or working. Stand on your own two feet if you are able to, and take care of those who cant.
We don't need to encourage more births, and if food and shelter for families is considered "non essential" by the welfare system I am sure that paying to keep children in miserable packs to be ignored all day by gum chewing half-wits is even less essential. |
|
In The Know (as always) |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Considering that we are told that the funds have ran out, and there is nothing to spare, we seem to be spending an awful lot on non essentials.
You call keeping those in work (ie those who pay ALL the bills) "non-essential" ?
WHERE would the money come from? |
|
andrew |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In The Know (as always) wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I would much rather pay for people with no jobs than the well off who can manage without help.
.... but without those who WORK there would be NO MONEY for the rest !
I would prefer that we stuck to the principal of the strong taking care of the weak. This doesn't fit in with the working poor subsiding the (sponger) rich to pay for their childcare etc.
Considering that we are told that the funds have ran out, and there is nothing to spare, we seem to be spending an awful lot on non essentials.
Look at the toffs conning money from the public. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
In The Know (as always) wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I would much rather pay for people with no jobs than the well off who can manage without help.
.... but without those who WORK there would be NO MONEY for the rest !
I would prefer that we stuck to the principal of the strong taking care of the weak. This doesn't fit in with the working poor subsiding the (sponger) rich to pay for their childcare etc.
Considering that we are told that the funds have ran out, and there is nothing to spare, we seem to be spending an awful lot on non essentials. |
|
|
|
