http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/25/iain-duncan-smith-benefit-cuts
Its not set in stone or law. it is just being talked about.
"Work and pensions secretary warns that parents on benefits should not expect more cash if they have more children"
And what happens to your third child if you lose your job? Or what if you get a paycut? Or what about if one of the parents decides to do a runner and not pay child support? Or what about if one of the parents die? Do we just allow children to go hungry?
Evil fucking Tories again. Scumbags.
I think you should read this, Consumariat.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Your point, caller?
...
What do you think my point is?
That you would rather see kids go hungry than redistribute wealth.
Don't have children if you can't afford it and you're not in a stable job/proffession.
Consumariat:That you would rather see kids go hungry than redistribute wealth.
Wrong answer, McFly. Try again.
Actually let me add this: by your reasoning, if you don't spend every thing you have (including your time) on someone who's dying, you therefore would rather see them die than live.
There's no such thing as a stable job or profession. Lot's of people already have kids What do you suggest we do with them?
How about you stop speaking in such a cryptic manner so that we might have a normal conversation.
You first.
if you don't spend every thing you have (including your time) on someone who's dying, you therefore would rather see them die than live.
We don't need to spend everything we have in order to prevent child poverty. Just some of it.
How do you know?
Oh and you missed my point. Again.
How do I know? Because I have eyes. We're one of the richest countries in the world at the most technologically developed point of history. You think that 100% of our wealth is required to provide a safety net? Of course not.
So you don't know. Just as I thought.
"Your point, caller?"
I think what auko meant to say is, government can only provide for those children by stealing. but the free market can provide even better care, without stealing....
how you ask? i'll let auko detail that for you.
Your not making any fucking points, and if you are trying to make them you need to be more explicit. I'm not a mind-reader.
yall need to stop bickering like children....auko...hit him with facts....
peace and love.....
Should the government steal more of my income to pay for the irresponsible behaviour of other people?
Consumariat:Your not making any fucking points, and if you are trying to make them you need to be more explicit. I'm not a mind-reader.
I am making points, you're just blind to them. I'm not surprised though. You seem to be blind to a lot of things.
Milton Friedman explaining the point to Consumariat.
government can only provide for those children by stealing. but the free market can provide even better care, without stealing....
Let's assume you are correct (I don't believe you are), the truth is that we do not have a free market in the sense that you are advocating, and so there still needs to be a way of providing for those that suffer under the current economic system.
How is it irresposible to have your partner die or leave you? How is it irresponsible to be made redundant, or to get a pay-cut, or to have the value of your income cut by inflation?
Consumariat:Let's assume you are correct (I don't believe you are), the truth is that we do not have a free market in the sense that you are advocating, and so there still needs to be a way of providing for those that suffer under the current economic system.
There doesn't "need" to be anything, let alone that. Try harder to open your eyes.
Why don't you open them for me, oh Wise One. Please, rain down upon me with your flawless logic in a glorious shower of enlightenment.
"How is it irresposible to have your partner die or leave you? How is it irresponsible to be made redundant, or to get a pay-cut, or to have the value of your income cut by inflation?"
It's not irresponsible to have those things happen to you, but it would be irresponsible not to take those things into account as RISKS. And when you invite more government nannying in, people understandably start to expect it as their right and stop being responsible for themselves. It's not their fault, but it is the fault of those who want more nanny stating.
@Autolykos
Just wanted to lol at your McFly reference. It's not 'cryptic' to me. :) Um, I just, um, I'm not sure that I should, you know, because I think that I should discuss this with my father...
Consumariat:Why don't you open them for me, oh Wise One. Please, rain down upon me with your flawless logic in a glorious shower of enlightenment.
I've already tried a bit. I'm not sure if additional effort would do any good, since you seem dead-set on keeping your eyes hermetically sealed shut.
fountainhead:Just wanted to lol at your McFly reference. It's not 'cryptic' to me. :) Um, I just, um, I'm not sure that I should, you know, because I think that I should discuss this with my father...
It's not irresponsible to have those things happen to you, but it would be irresponsible not to take those thinks into account as RISKS. And when you invite more government nannying in, people understandably start to expect it as their right and stop being responsible for themselves. It's not their fault, but it is the fault of those who want more nanny stating.
And in the mean time children starve. All so that we can be aware of the risks of them being alive in the first place. Wonderfull.
There are millions starving in Africa. What do we do about them?
"And in the mean time children starve. All so that we can be aware of the risks of them being alive in the first place. Wonderfull."
Then why not just have government provide food to everyone? That way no children will starve.
You haven't tried anything Autolykos. That's not your way. Your way is to protect your fragile little ego by communicating poorly, and then convincing yourself afterwards that people didn't understand you because your vast intellect was too great for them. Well good luck with that.
NonAntiAnarchist, I've been lolling at the fact that Consumariat has been equating the West's lower class with actual poverty throughout the world.
Go back in time and undo all those Structural Adjustment Programmes that robbed the third world of it's sovereignty. Oh, and in the mean time we feed them to the best of our abilities.
Do we just allow children to go hungry?
Consumariat:You haven't tried anything Autolykos. That's not your way.
So you say. Fortunately I know better.
Consumariat:Your way is to protect your fragile little ego by communicating poorly, and then convincing yourself afterwards that people didn't understand you because your vast intellect was too great for them. Well good luck with that.
Projecting much? Clearly I struck a nerve.
Malachi:what are you doing about it?
That's the same point I tried making to him. I expect this to fall on blind eyes once again.
Because whilst the market works best to provide food for people most of the time, it works poorly to provide for those that fall though the cracks. Government should be there to help us up when we fall down.
I've been lolling at the fact that Consumariat has been equating the West's lower class with actual poverty throughout the world.
"109,294 adults and children in the UK received at least days of emergency food aid between April and September 2012, with the figure expected to rise to over 200,000 by April 2013." http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/food-banks-trussel-trust-uk-data
Hilarious. I'm 'lolling' uncontrollably.
Consumariat:Because whilst the market works best to provide food for people most of the time, it works poorly to provide for those that fall though the cracks. Government should be there to help us up when we fall down.
Okay I'll try one more thing.
Tell me, what difference(s) do you see between the market and government?
what are you doing about it?
Not much. I donate monthly to a local children's hospice, and also to a mental health charity. But all of that is irrelevant because charity has never, and can never, provide the level of security that government can.