Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

"Pulling your own weight does not mean providing for the lazy asses of society." No it doesn't, but you appear to want to stop paying for those that do need providing for because of those that abuse the system, rather than fix the problem.

"People think that their needs constitute a right." Who are these people? I've never met someone who didn't genuinely deserve help who thought they had a right to benefits. Those benefit frauds I have known are all scum suckers who would rather keep their heads down and carry on abusing the system than risk rocking the boat.

"pull their own weight" you mean like actually helping society in general? Like paying taxes which in turn is distributed to help those less fortunate; like those that need it?

Have you ever thought that the people are willing to pay extra for it? And like I said, if you stopped funding the military you'd be able to pay for it and get money back.

Sorry who claims it's a free society? Your idea of a free society wouldn't actually be a society would it?

I doubt anyone on "benies" would vote themselves extras at the cost of reducing the overall standard of living. Maybe they'd vote to stop the military spending (in the US) which is destroying the standard of living of others rather than worry about taking more from the already honest hard working tax dodgers.

Not exactly complaining is it, just explaining your situation? Kukla also states that she's not taking money from anyone else (or sounds like she feels she's owed it).

And, by the way, it's not wrong to want better for yourself, it's not greedy it's generally what everyone wants, it's the fuggin "American Dream" is isn't it?

"The "needy" claim that the able bodies are a bunch of greedy SOBs and that's why they have a "right" to the able bodies' wages. "

Says who. Lots of "claims" going on with little in the way of proof. I put it to you that the benefits offered to the "needy" were more likely put forward by "able" people who actually just give a shit about others.

"But there's no evidence to support this. "

Oh, OK so make a wild statement, then quietly add that it's unprovable.

"It's a deplorable system that punishes the able bodies for being able."

WHAT? No. How is helping out people who need it deplorable? Quite the opposite, it is admirable that society helps those who need it. I don't feel like I'm being punished, especially as I'm paying the same small contribution as everyone else.

My girlfriend worked in a state run home for people who can't look after themselves, they cannot work, they masturbate all day and eat their own shit, I don't think anyone thinks the right thing to do is to make them work.

The kind of people who can't find jobs after a year would be people in the midst of a recession, depression, people whose chosen industry has collapsed. Whole communities which were built up on one industry, which is removed almost overnight, cannot get jobs immediately flipping burgers for each other.

I am imagining that you're in the position where your job has helped pay for your kids to be looked after, or your job provides such things, I am also imagining (guessing) that you have a pretty good job and are fairly skilled. Some people aren't and don't have such fortune.

I did not say forever for these people either, but an arbitrary limit of a year is silly, mothers get 12 months maternity leave alone in the UK, that's if they were employed before they got pregnant, is it fair to demand more from mothers/fathers who are on welfare (or that they deserve less)?

I think (I hope) we're meeting somewhere in the middle on this one anyway, so I'll make this the last one on this thread (unless you post something really inflammatory :)

- I am (again) not for people being on welfare permanently (again they are lazy) or people being given it unfairly, but it's better to catch a few pretenders who don't need it than it is to fail those who do.

No, people with behavioural difficulties, people with medical conditions, single parents bringing up young kids, people who can't find jobs, full time carers looking after relatives who aren't self sufficient. Cutting off cheques to people who need it would not be beneficial, and would more than likely prove detrimental to society overall.

What about people who can't work, people who shouldn't work, people who can't find work?

There are assessments (in the UK anyway) for eligibility for most types of welfare, but even those who are "lazy", the cost of supporting them is probably insignificant to the benefits in standards of life for those that do need it, and is probably infinitesimal compared to the revenues lost (which you have to make up for) from powerful companies and people who avoid paying tax.