welfare is an addictive drug

[russtafa]

Continuous welfare is very harmful to the recipients it would be better for the government to create work/much needed projects for people and give their self-esteem back than have people on welfare generation after generation

[trish]

...it would be better for the government to create work/much needed projects for people...Show me the conservative who is in favor of that.

[russtafa]

i don't care i am in favor it worked in the depression and it's alot better than just giving people money for nothing and you get much needed projects done

[russtafa]

In Australia the labour party shot it down

[trish]

Over here you wouldn't be able to get a single conservative to give it a moment's reflection. They're all anti-American government and are hell bent on dismantling everything that government does, except for lubricating the wheels of giant corporations, and funneling more money and power to the wealthiest among us.

[Silcc69]

Show me the conservative who is in favor of that.

http://tall-paul.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Pigs+Fly.jpg

[Stavros]

Two schemes have been tried which take the view that it is pointless giving people a welfare cheque to do nothing when they could be paid to do something -Roosevelt's first administration created the Civilian Conservation Corps that put young men to work in various schemes designed to improve national parks, roads, bridges and so forth -it was wound up in the 1940s when it was no longer needed; Workfare, developed in the 1960s was similar but more coercive -and in both the argument also claimed the work took young men off the streets, gave them an income, some personal self-worth, maybe even a skill as well as people/social skills. In both cases the schemes have been successfull temporarily, and some have moved out of the welfare trap. With mass unemployment the cost of such schemes today would be onerous on governments that no longer support infrastructural development -the admin costs of an extra layer of government bureaucracy would probably cancel out the assumed savings on welfare, and also with the added problem of the drugs, dysfunctional behaviour that are barriers to youth employment in particular, some of the men would just abscond or give up after a week -but some would benefit. The kind of concentrated unemploment in cities suggests taking people out of their neighbourhood, because that is the hole in which they can't stop digging. But to achieve that they have to feel its worth the effort, and if there isn't a job to go to, it won't work. In principle you are right, we all see young mothers aged 16 whose own mothers were 16 and have lived in benefits all their life -taking them out of the trap costs money in admin, training and so on -right now we have a Conservative government whose economic restructuring is based on cutting public spending now on the basis that jobs will 'come back' when the economy recovers....

Civilian Conservation Corps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:CCC_constructing_road.gif" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/CCC_constructing_road.gif/300px-CCC_constructing_road.gif"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/17/CCC_constructing_road.gif/300px-CCC_constructing_road.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps)

Workfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg" class="image"><img alt="Wiki letter w cropped.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg/20px-Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/1c/Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg/20px-Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare)

[russtafa]

the labour party and welfare groups argued that it was unfair to expect the unemployed to work for their welfare payments

[trish]

the labour party and welfare groups argued that it was unfair to expect the unemployed to work for their welfare payments Really? Let's see a quote from reputable source of a legitimate labour party representative saying (in the context of government jobs programs)that in effect, "It's generally unfair to expect the unemployed to work for welfare."
Over here no one would agree to that statement, conservative or liberal...though the conservatives would say it's not the job of government to provide such works programs.

[russtafa]

the federal government [liberal] a conservative government enacted a work for the dole scheme in in 1987 but stopped by the incoming labour goverment

[trish]

So you say, but let's see a labour representative who verifiably says it's unfair to expect people to work for welfare support.

[natina]

corporate WELFARE IS FAR MORE ADDICTIVE then individual welfare


government subsidizes
tax breaks
bailouts
grants
low interest loans
no interest loans


Corporate welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare)


Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)


NEOCons on Welfare than Liberals. You have to include Corporate Welfare, Pentegon Contracts,

Agriculture, and Oil industries when talking about Welfare. And the blood sucking Welfare winners are:

neocons .



ORANGE COUNTY WAS PRIMARILY WHITE MIDDLE CLASS

and now because of the BUSH ERA,

the housing market scam,the stock market scandal,the pyramid schemers has become a place where............

take note people are driving around with NO CAR INSURANCE because they have to choose between eating,shelter and other basic

OR
paying for insurance

MANY insurance company warned me about orange county and not having full coverage/gap coverage etc......yada yada yada

once middle class people or going to get free groceries and other items because they are financial in trouble/have hit a low ect.....


THE OC WAS HIT HARD BY THE REAL ESTATE BUBBLE I.E.
OVER EVALUATION OF PROPERTY VALUES,upside down mortgages,variable interest rate loans/high interest rate loans .


Bird and Fortune - Subprime Banking Mess
YouTube - &#x202a;Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g)


Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis
YouTube - &#x202a;Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g)


YouTube - &#x202a;Subprime Banking Mess&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC31Oudc5Bg)


John Bird and John Fortune (the Long Johns) brilliantly, and accurately, describing the mindset of the investment banking community in this satirical interview.



Re: welfare is an addictive drug



Continuous welfare is very harmful to the recipients it would be better for the government to create work/much needed projects for people and give their self-esteem back than have people on welfare generation after generation

[natina]

Amazon.com: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) (9781591841913): David Cay Johnston: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lanA6RJSL.@@AMEPARAM@@51lanA6RJSL (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591841917#_)





http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lanA6RJSL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg



More NEOCons on Welfare than Liberals. You have to


include Corporate Welfare, Pentegon Contracts, Agriculture, and Oil industries when talking about Welfare.

And the blood sucking Welfare winners are:


neocons

Amazon.com: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) (9781591841913): David Cay Johnston: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lanA6RJSL.@@AMEPARAM@@51lanA6RJSL (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591841917#_)

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&SearchType=1&Author=xfean&DayFrom=30&DayTo=0&MessageID=130426&frmSearch=1#130426


neocons do not have to do this!;they just get free money

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&SearchType=1&Author=xfean&DayFrom=30&DayTo=0&MessageID=130833&frmSearch=1#130833


Amazon.com: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) (9781591841913): David Cay Johnston: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lanA6RJSL.@@AMEPARAM@@51lanA6RJSL (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591841917#reader_1591841917)

[natina]

Capitalism for the middle class, socialism for the rich, indeed http://www.theeroticreview.com/library/style/i/emoticons/regular_smile.gif

The middle class and poor get crumbs from measly "bailouts" such as the lackluster sub-prime mortgage assistance program and a tax rebate check for $600; while the rich get more tangible bailouts to the tune of billions. Capitalism for the middle class, socialism for the rich, indeed! This is what you get when corrupt Republicans and the Corporate sociopathic personality rule the economy. One of the ways to change this dynamic is to remove corporation's status as a separate entity unbound by individual consequences and place more responsibility on the executives that direct corporate actions.

We need to end the the welfare era for the rich via tax cuts, Halliburton / war "no bid" handouts, oil company gouging and corporate bailouts. Instead, the American government needs to lift the middle class with investments in education, job training, energy independence (from domestic oil companies too!), health care and economic programs such as small business development and tangible mortgage assistance.

The only choice for fiscal conservatives in this election is Obama. By electing Obama POTUS and other fiscally sympathetic representatives, the middle class can then exercise its newfound power over insurance companies, corporations and bankers. You want us to bail you out? Here are some of our demands:

Will the tide finally turn during an Obama Presidency? After analyzing Obama's economic positions (including health care, tax policies and budgeting), most economists say "yes!"

After eight years of the Bush Presidency, McCain style deregulation and tax policy that favors the rich, the American middle class has been taken hostage and told they will lose everything (trickle down financial ruin) if they do not bailout the big banks, investment firms and insurance companies. Bush & Cheney have perfected the panic mode wealth transfer that Naomi Klein describes so well in "The Shock Doctrine." This multi-trillion-dollar parting gift is their payback to the upper class that helped orchestrate their election

The middle class and poor get crumbs from measly "bailouts" such as the lackluster sub-prime mortgage assistance program and a tax rebate check for $600; while the rich get more tangible bailouts to the tune of billions. Capitalism for the middle class, socialism for the rich, indeed! This is what you get when corrupt Republicans and the Corporate sociopathic personality rule the economy. One of the ways to change this dynamic is to remove corporation's status as a separate entity unbound by individual consequences and place more responsibility on the executives that direct corporate actions.

We need to end the the welfare era for the rich via tax cuts, Halliburton / war "no bid" handouts, oil company gouging and corporate bailouts. Instead, the American government needs to lift the middle class with investments in education, job training, energy independence (from domestic oil companies too!), health care and economic programs such as small business development and tangible mortgage assistance.

The only choice for fiscal conservatives in this election is Obama. By electing Obama POTUS and other fiscally sympathetic representatives, the middle class can then exercise its newfound power over insurance companies, corporations and bankers. You want us to bail you out? Here are some of our demands:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-garibaldi-frick/upper-class-pillaging_b_135892.html

[natina]

How would you like to pay only a quarter of the real estate taxes you owe on your home? And buy everything for the next 10 years without spending a single penny in sales tax? Keep a chunk of your paycheck free of income taxes? Have the city in which you live lend you money at rates cheaper than any bank charges? Then have the same city install free water and sewer lines to your house, offer you a perpetual discount on utility bills--and top it all off by landscaping your front yard at no charge?
Fat chance. You can't get any of that, of course. But if you live almost anywhere in America, all around you are taxpayers getting deals like this. These taxpayers are called corporations, and their deals are usually trumpeted as "economic development" or "public-private partnerships." But a better name is corporate welfare. It's a game in which governments large and small subsidize corporations large and small, usually at the expense of another state or town and almost always at the expense of individual and other corporate taxpayers.
Two years after Congress reduced welfare for individuals and families, this other kind of welfare continues to expand, penetrating every corner of the American economy. It has turned politicians into bribery specialists, and smart business people into con artists. And most surprising of all, it has rarely created any new jobs.
While corporate welfare has attracted critics from both the left and the right, there is no uniform definition. By TIME's definition, it is this: any action by local, state or federal government that gives a corporation or an entire industry a benefit not offered to others. It can be an outright subsidy, a grant, real estate, a low-interest loan or a government service. It can also be a tax break--a credit, exemption, deferral or deduction, or a tax rate lower than the one others pay.
The rationale to curtail traditional welfare programs, such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps, and to impose a lifetime limit on the amount of aid received, was compelling: the old system didn't work. It was unfair, destroyed incentive, perpetuated dependence and distorted the economy. An 18-month TIME investigation has found that the same indictment, almost to the word, applies to corporate welfare. In some ways, it represents pork-barrel legislation of the worst order. The difference, of course, is that instead of rewarding the poor, it rewards the powerful.
And it rewards them handsomely. The Federal Government alone shells out $125 billion a year in corporate welfare, this in the midst of one of the more robust economic periods in the nation's history. Indeed, thus far in the 1990s, corporate profits have totaled $4.5 trillion--a sum equal to the cumulative paychecks of 50 million working Americans who earned less than $25,000 a year, for those eight years.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989508,00.html#ixzz1R6ujzwT7




http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989508,00.html

[russtafa]

i am not talking about corporations i am talking about people and it destroys their lives

[Stavros]

There are a number of reasons why welfare to work schemes have not been successful:

1. There is a tendency to focus on 're-skilling' or giving claimants a skill they can use in the job market; but whats the point of being trained to work in a call centre if the industry then gets outsourced to India? Or being trained to cut hair when there are more hair salons than bars in most towns, and the job is one of the lowest paid in the UK?

2. Labour market flexibility means that a lot of under-educated claimants -some of whom may be semi-literate at best- are only available for unskilled manual labour, but many of these jobs are either not available or only in short-term contracts or part-time rosters -the income from these jobs in one year is less than the welfare and therefore the claimant who works is financially worse off.

3. Young mothers under the age of 20 who have two small children -who is going to look after the children while she works?

If a government creates an agency to implement the scheme, the director-general will be on £100,000 a year or more, he will have heads of Policy, HR, Field Staff, and then the middle ranking team leaders and then the clerical staff who have to deal with claimants on a daily basis -and you have to have some kind of relationship with employers willing to take on claimants. The cost is enormous even before you start the scheme.

With Roosevelts scheme, they took young men off the streets, put them in tents in the countryside and worked from there. I can't see claimants moving out of their council apartments in the inner city to live -even temporarily- in a tent in New South Wales, can you?

It is a complex issue and there are no easy solutions.

[russtafa]

why not if they are living in state housing and there is work else where,at least it shows to the general public that they are willing to work.i travelled around Australia for work, why not them,beats bludging on the taxpayer

[Silcc69]

why not if they are living in state housing and there is work else where,at least it shows to the general public that they are willing to work.i travelled around Australia for work, why not them,beats bludging on the taxpayer

What about corporate welfare?

[trish]

Roosevelt's 3C program was a great success. The roads, trails, bridges and levies that they built within the National and State Park systems are still maintained and enjoyed by families even today. It's true, as Stavros says, that 3C workers were housed in tents and makeshift barracks on work locations. Urban men with families and single mothers could not easily avail themselves of the opportunity. It was however a big success among young, unmarried men. My grandfather worked on a 3C camp along the Potomac when he was sixteen, lived in the barracks and had his pay sent home to his parents and four younger siblings. His father worked on a RR-maintenance crew keeping a fifty mile stretch of track in repair (for the Ma&Pa RR) while his mother took in sewing. As you can see by this example, the 3C program was not a give away. I take some exception to your (Russtafa's) characterization of such programs; e.g. "at least it shows to the general public that they are willing to work." It makes it sound as if the tax payer is doing the participants of these programs favor by subsidizing them. That is not at all the case. They were paid to do a job. The people who worked for the 3C worked hard, got paid minimally and produced a lasting and valuable product. Now if you want to talk about taxpayer supported subsidies, consider (as Silcc and natina suggest) corporate welfare.

[russtafa]

that's an interesting idea

[Stavros]

In addition to the financial and admin costs of a new welfare to work programme, I think that its hard these days to impose projects on people. The depression in the US, UK and Germany -to take three examples, made people desperate for work because there was no welfare, whereas these days and in the UK because of the grim experience of the depression, welfare exists as a safety net. It means, culturally too many people instead of thinking of it as a last resort, see it as a substitute for work. When there was full employment it was not an issue, these days the erosion of full employment and in particular the lack of labour intensive unskilled work has created a 'reserve army of labour' that doesn't labour. We have skill shortages in the UK because of gaps in the educational attainment in sciences which has been discussed before in these threads. I agree that some people like Russtafa will get on the proverbial bike and work anywhere in Australia if they have to -but you can't force people to do it.
Corporate welfare, so-called has been one attempt to lure businesses back to unemployment graveyards by offering them rent free, tax holiday options and in some cases it works, but its over-rated as a solution to unemployment -the sad fact is that the skills and the machinery and computing sofware needed to make things is global, not the special character of Detroit or Birmingham -we are facing up to the question what do you do with a generation for whom only 40% can be guaranteed a job for life? I don't know the real percentage, but consider how many jobs these days are not permanent but contracts for anything from 6 months to 6 years. There might be an alternative to all this, perhaps we are too wedded to the idea of work as an eight-hour-a-day task involving making things or dealing with paper, and there are alternatives which would involve more people and get paid. We are in a box on this -what's outside the box?

[Birgitta]

The only thing that would really work is study the causes of people ending up there in the first place instead of pointing your finger from a comfortable position in life...

[ed_jaxon]

Three pages and not one mention of PRWORA.

[trish]

PRWORA: a half-baked component of the GOP's 'contract with America' which Clinton signed but the American public didn't...partly because of how the GOP supporters railed relentlessly against single moms and unemployed blacks. The bill was perceived as misogynist and racist. It did have some minimal success in making life a little harder for so called 'slackers'. Can any say how many people actually gained viable job training or a livelihood though the program? Once the 'slackers' are off 'the dole' (unless they're farmers or corporations) people tend not to give them a second thought.
As far as using corporate subsidies to create jobs, consider Walmart. It moved into a no tax zone in our town. Yeah, it created some jobs. But it also undersold every other store in town. Now our town square is emptied of business. The town's only surviving tax base is the home owners. We're single() handedly supporting the schools, the police, the parks, and Walmart.

[Silcc69]

PRWORA: a half-baked component of the GOP's 'contract with America' which Clinton signed but the American public didn't...partly because of how the GOP supporters railed relentlessly against single moms and unemployed blacks. The bill was perceived as misogynist and racist. It did have some minimal success in making life a little harder for so called 'slackers'. Can any say how many people actually gained viable job training or a livelihood though the program? Once the 'slackers' are off 'the dole' (unless they're farmers or corporations) people tend not to give them a second thought.
As far as using corporate subsidies to create jobs, consider Walmart. It moved into a no tax zone in our town. Yeah, it created some jobs. But it also undersold every other store in town. Now our town square is emptied of business. The town's only surviving tax base is the home owners. We're singled handedly supporting the schools, the police, the parks, and Walmart.

I'm so sick and tired of Walmart. We literally have 3 Super Walmarts within a 4 mile radius of each other. 1 of those Walmarts could been an grocery store of an old store that has been vacant for about 15 years or so.

[Stavros]

The only thing that would really work is study the causes of people ending up there in the first place instead of pointing your finger from a comfortable position in life...

I agree; I have not intended to 'blame the victims' in this as I have tried to suggest the employment problem in places like the UK and the US is as much caused by structural changes to industry and investment as it is by welfare policy. But if you want a hard fact, how do you get someone to stop smoking, to get off heroin? It has to start with that individual making a personal decision to stop, and having the will to continue -it can't always be done alone, a support network is needed and my argument to a drug addict would be: if you want to give it up, there is a support network of professionals there to help- the UK has various agencies who exist to help. It doesnt mean an ex-addict, or someone released from prison, or a semi-literate layabout can get a job if there are no jobs where they live, but either we give up and 'wait for the recovery', or think outside the box we are in. Its multi-causal, not individual.

[Birgitta]

If there is going to be a solution it most likely wont be in favor of those people....
Maybe free accesible euthanesia will work..
If they start complaining you can tell them, well we provided you with an easy way out, why dont you take it....
Aaah the human race, i lost faith in them...

[hippifried]

I'm thinking that 19th century economic theory doesn't work in the 21st century. I'm not convinced it ever worked as planned. We need a rethink, & I don't see any of these "experts" even trying to think outside what was pounded into their heads in school. How can you hand out a Nobel in economics to somebody who's never done anything but get lucky on a guess?

[russtafa]

i feel it is crime to put family's on welfare generation after generation.especially what it does to communities, high crime rates,drug and alcoholism,and other problems.it is a waste of human resources and a moral crime to let this happen

[Birgitta]

i feel it is crime to put family's on welfare generation after generation.especially what it does to communities, high crime rates,drug and alcoholism,and other problems.it is a waste of human resources and a moral crime to let this happen

working for wellfare will bring people into absolute poverty and will make things worse for them...people need a fair chance and perspective in life...otherwise they wont be able to escape their problems and difficulties, health issues etc, drug use due to trauma, and it will continue to be a spiral downwards....only faster

[Stavros]

I'm thinking that 19th century economic theory doesn't work in the 21st century. I'm not convinced it ever worked as planned. We need a rethink, & I don't see any of these "experts" even trying to think outside what was pounded into their heads in school. How can you hand out a Nobel in economics to somebody who's never done anything but get lucky on a guess?

I agree with this -we are told its just part of 'the cycle' because classical economics says that economies experiences cycles of growth and recession -which always sounds to me like one of Pharoah's dreams as interpreted by Joseph, so the cycle is hardly original. Also, manufacturing industry used to be labour intensive and in global terms, restricted to parts of western Europe, part of America north and south, and Japan. These days, mass production has moved 'offshore' (a peculiar phrase) to China, and markets and technology have changed the structure of the world economy. For some reason, theory has not changed so much, or it has failed to produce a coherent and practical alternative.

In the 1980s Andre Gorz tried to think outside the box -he rejected orthodox Marxism and argued instead that the erosion of traditional manufacturing jobs liberated people who could work for themselves and he also advocated the LETS [Local Employment Trading System] whereby people stop working for money and exchange goods and services, intially at a local level -if you have a skill, say as an electrician, and someone else has a skill, say, a baker -the electrician does a job in the bakery and gets bread in return etc. It is, however, a utopian system which, ironically or not, relied on a degree of welfare from the state to make up the income differences: but welfare is being slashed, and LETS is not widely used.

[onmyknees]

Roosevelt's 3C program was a great success. The roads, trails, bridges and levies that they built within the National and State Park systems are still maintained and enjoyed by families even today. It's true, as Stavros says, that 3C workers were housed in tents and makeshift barracks on work locations. Urban men with families and single mothers could not easily avail themselves of the opportunity. It was however a big success among young, unmarried men. My grandfather worked on a 3C camp along the Potomac when he was sixteen, lived in the barracks and had his pay sent home to his parents and four younger siblings. His father worked on a RR-maintenance crew keeping a fifty mile stretch of track in repair (for the Ma&Pa RR) while his mother took in sewing. As you can see by this example, the 3C program was not a give away. I take some exception to your (Russtafa's) characterization of such programs; e.g. "at least it shows to the general public that they are willing to work." It makes it sound as if the tax payer is doing the participants of these programs favor by subsidizing them. That is not at all the case. They were paid to do a job. The people who worked for the 3C worked hard, got paid minimally and produced a lasting and valuable product. Now if you want to talk about taxpayer supported subsidies, consider (as Silcc and natina suggest) corporate welfare.

Holy Shit....nearly 2 years and a point of agreement.
Emphatically agree. Travel anywhere in New England and you'll see beautiful camp grounds and State Parks built by the CCC. I have one I enjoy on every trip through the Berkshire Hills and it's as beautiful today as it was back when built. I .enjoy the monument and history to the men who built it. Had an uncle feed his family while employed by the Corps.
As today's dependency society and ending welfare as we know it....I'll stick with the one point of agreement and leave the points of contention for another day !
:Bowdown:

[russtafa]

right and left both agree this problem need's to be fixed

[Birgitta]

Maybe try use your right and left hemisphere at once first before comparing housing and food to drug addiction, it makes me think u belong in the madhouse lol

[russtafa]

the welfare housing the unemployed live in are homes of crime and addiction but at least the police always know where to go

[Birgitta]

the welfare housing the unemployed live in are homes of crime and addiction but at least the police always know where to go

they should be going to the houses of some of the sociapaths that post in this thread, you for example, but it sure makes u feel good and better then them right...i wonder if you would last a day in their shoes...

[russtafa]

i would not be in their shoe's,i have worked very ,very hard all my life and would take any job i could get when i was younger and avoided hard drugs and always obeyed the law

[Birgitta]

i would not be in their shoe's,i have worked very ,very hard all my life and would take any job i could get when i was younger and avoided hard drugs and always obeyed the law

you just assume people that have wellfare did not work hard enough to get out, you also asume you can compare your life with that of people you dont even know, which makes you look pretty infantile and arrogant
...in my eyes...

[russtafa]

you think what you want but i have seen the highs and lows of life and i don't care about your eyes.i have worked with people from people on welfare as a security guard for the government so i definitely know problems

[Stavros]

This thread should not be about you Russtafa, but the truly difficult problem of finding a way out of the impasse generated by a well-intentioned welfare system. Other than mass employment, I don't know what the solution is.

[Birgitta]

They want people to work in factory's under big pressure for very little money, thats the whole intend of making the rich richer and the poor poorer....europe and america want to compete with countries like china, so they want to exploid the commen people eventually, not for their own sake, ...but for the rich, speculators and bankers....etc
History as a rule shows us people in positions of power do not carIie for the poor, especially now that even commen people dont have faith anymore or a belief in the afterlife, everyone feels free to be the bastard they like to be...

Better prepare yourself coz the truth of humanity on earth is a lot more creepy then i just said...
Freedom is an hallucination...

And in my view most people that write in this thread really have no clue about what it means to be surviving, instead of living your life in peace...it makes u look incredibly spoiled or just plain stupid

Except for natina, he is right...capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich

Eventually poor family's will not be able to make it, only the rich will be able to stay healthy and look after their children, coz they have the means to do so...

Taking money away from the most vulnerable people in sociaty, so they become homeless beggers is not going to improve their life, nor is having them working for very little money so that their situation will become worse instead of better...

[hippifried]

you think what you want but i have seen the highs and lows of life and i don't care about your eyes.i have worked with people from people on welfare as a security guard for the government so i definitely know problems
Oh geezle, he's a mall cop. On the government payroll too. Seen to me, that's only one step away from welfare.

[russtafa]

i have done many jobs hippie and no i was not a mall cop and this is not about me it is about millions of people out of work on welfare with nothing to do except crime and drugs for generation after generation

[trish]

Populations without work for very extended periods of time (on the order of generations) all tend toward drugs and crime regardless of whether welfare is available to them or not. In fact welfare tends to ameliorate the situation, providing an alternative to crime, rather than worsen it. For examples, one need only look at any large nineteenth century city before welfare existed. You will find the ingrained poor engaged in every sort of criminal activity and every sort of escapism. They are poor, not because they have criminal or licentious characters. Rather, many become criminals and licentious in part because there is no other way left to them to live. You got to realize, as any wealthy profiteer will also tell you, that crime is work too, just not legal work. The Madoffs of the world choose their life of crime. The poor are trapped in the economy of their time and location and do what they must to survive. Welfare may not be the solution to the problem of the jobless poor. But it certainly isn't the root of the problem either.

[Birgitta]

Populations without work for very extended periods of time (on the order of generations) all tend toward drugs and crime regardless of whether welfare is available to them or not. In fact welfare tends to ameliorate the situation, providing an alternative to crime, rather than worsen it. For examples, one need only look at any large nineteenth century city before welfare existed. You will find the ingrained poor engaged in every sort of criminal activity and every sort of escapism. They are poor, not because they have criminal or licentious characters. Rather, many become criminals and licentious in part because there is no other way left to them to live. They are trapped in the economy of their time and location. You got to realize, as any wealthy profiteer can tell you too, that crime is work too, just not legal work. Welfare may not be solution of the problem of the jobless poor. But it certainly isn't the root of the problem either.

Exactly

[trish]

Sorry Birgitta, I was revising while you were commenting. Thanks for your remarks.

[onmyknees]

They want people to work in factory's under big pressure for very little money, thats the whole intend of making the rich richer and the poor poorer....europe and america want to compete with countries like china, so they want to exploid the commen people eventually, not for their own sake, ...but for the rich, speculators and bankers....etc
History as a rule shows us people in positions of power do not carIie for the poor, especially now that even commen people dont have faith anymore or a belief in the afterlife, everyone feels free to be the bastard they like to be...

Better prepare yourself coz the truth of humanity on earth is a lot more creepy then i just said...
Freedom is an hallucination...


Except for natina, he is right...capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich

Eventually poor family's will not be able to make it, only the rich will be able to stay healthy and look after their children, coz they have the means to do so...

Taking money away from the most vulnerable people in sociaty, so they become homeless beggers is not going to improve their life, nor is having them working for very little money so that their situation will become worse instead of better...



WTF are you talking about?

"Better prepare yourself coz the truth of humanity on earth is a lot more creepy then i just said..."

You sounds exactly like what the guy who knocked on my door at dinner time said as he handed me a pamphlet about the coming end of the world. I try to always be polite, but me dinner was getting cold, and his bizzare run on sentences seemingly never ended. I'll do ( methorpically speaking) to you what I did to him....slammed the door in his face. Your rantings and judgemental tone is frankly as annoying on the political boards as the general discussion boards.

[Birgitta]

WTF are you talking about?

"Better prepare yourself coz the truth of humanity on earth is a lot more creepy then i just said..."

You sounds exactly like what the guy who knocked on my door at dinner time said as he handed me a pamphlet about the coming end of the world. I try to always be polite, but me dinner was getting cold, and his bizzare run on sentences seemingly never ended. I'll do ( methorpically speaking) to you what I did to him....slammed the door in his face. Your rantings and judgemental tone is frankly as annoying on the political boards as the general discussion boards.

Good im glad coz im only sweet to people who i think deserve it...
The end of the world? Never mentioned that, i just hope we dont put too much faith in human nature, coz i am not sure that we deserve it...
And if there ever came an end to the world, now would be more likely then ever...
There are a lot of forces (the ongoing destruction of nature on earth) now that are beyond our controll...its madness that we allow it to happen, but we do....sooooo,
It seems to be just a matter of time....

[russtafa]

i wondered when it was coming the" end of the earth syndrome" by the left.how boring

[russtafa]

Australia has one of the best welfare systems in the world but it should not be abused. Generation after generation have been at the expense of the tax payer and the moral and educational decline of values of the recipients all for the gratification of left wing do gooders with ulterior motives

[trish]

What ulterior motives? Is the liberal agenda to do good or not? If liberals have ulterior motives, then you can't call them "do gooders." If they're "do gooders," then they don't have ulterior motives. You can't have it both ways. Which is it?

[russtafa]

they hide behind that image but they really want something else

[trish]

What else??? You hate liberals because they're "do gooders," you said so. Why you would hate someone for trying to do good, I don't know. But that doesn't matter, because you really don't believe they're "do gooders." You just like to call them names, and somewhere you got the idea that "do gooder" was a really bad name. But in fact you don't believe they're "do gooders"; in fact you think liberals are up to no good__though you can't be specific__you just have a sneaky suspicion that bubbled up from muck at the bottom of your muddled psyche.

So to sum up russtafa, you've been caught intentionally saying one thing while believing the opposite and doing it for an unspecifiable ulterior motive; exactly what you accuse others of. That makes you, my dear friend, a hypocrite.

BTW, I notice you completely ignored my post #45 ( http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=964865&postcount=45 ). I would be interested in an intelligent response. Also you never got back to me on those queries I made back in post #2 and #11 ( http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=962257&postcount=2 ).

[robertlouis]

What else??? You hate liberals because they're "do gooders," you said so. Why you would hate someone for trying to do good, I don't know. But that doesn't matter, because you really don't believe they're "do gooders." You just like to call them names, and somewhere you got the idea that "do gooder" was a really bad name. But in fact you don't believe they're "do gooders"; in fact you think liberals are up to no good__though you can't be specific__you just have a sneaky suspicion that bubbled up from muck at the bottom of your muddled psyche.

So to sum up russtafa, you've been caught intentionally saying one thing while believing the opposite and doing it for an unspecifiable ulterior motive; exactly what you accuse others of. That makes you, my dear friend, a hypocrite.

BTW, I notice you completely ignored my post #45 ( http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=964865&postcount=45 ). I would be interested in an intelligent response. Also you never got back to me on those queries I made back in post #2 and #11 ( http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=962257&postcount=2 ).

You're wasting your time, Trish. Russ has one world view and no amount of rational argument or presentation of fact is going to shift him from it:

The rest of the world is a left-wing/liberal/do-gooder conspiracy against the decent working class of Australia and the conspiracy exists solely to provide undeserving aboriginals with things they haven't earned - oh, that's if they exist at all, of course.

I think that more or less covers it. What a shame the tea party hasn't started an Australian branch yet. :whistle:

My sister and her husband are flying in from Sydney on Tuesday and I'll see how much Russ's view of the country chimes with theirs, but I'm sure they're part of the same conspiracy, so their opinion won't count.... :wiggle:

[russtafa]

Hey Robert ask them if our government would give the Australian people a plebisite or how the government is doing in the polls or if they will ever get re elected again after lying to the voters and you ask me about a conspiracy?Ask them about our government wanting to scrap our industries and put thousands out of work to please their socialist supporters

[robertlouis]

Hey Robert ask them if our government would give the Australian people a plebisite or how the government is doing in the polls or if they will ever get re elected again after lying to the voters and you ask me about a conspiracy?Ask them about our government wanting to scrap our industries and put thousands out of work to please their socialist supporters

I rest my case. Your witness.

[Prospero]

Plebicite

[russtafa]

yes thanks for the spelling mistake correction .the government wont give us our democratic rights to vote on the issue because they are so scared of the result which will damn them as going against the people

[Stavros]

In a way, Welfare is like credit: governments borrow money on the markets on the assumption that the revenues from the economy will pay them off, just as a business borrows on the promise that the loan will be repaid to the bank: welfare was always supposed to be a safety net for people who suddenly found themselves unemployed, homeless or whatever: it was never meant to become an alternative: people suddenly unemployed would have a small income to keep them alive until they got back into work and left the system. The end of mass employment in the 1970s changed the landscape of income and distribution: it also meant that the volume of receipts from taxes from people in work declined -just as between 1945 and 1975 the volume of receipts from local government in the UK declined as local councils lost revenue streams but still had to fund a growing population of elderly and over the same period school rolls that were rising in one decade, declining in another: the point being, we have to adjust to a reality in which there are not enough jobs to go round -we either re-invent work and wages, or pay the consequences for the idleness that yes, Russtafa may be the fault of can't work won't work jackasses more interested in bashing someone over the head for their extra income -and those who want to work, but can't get a job because they are over 45, they don't have the right skill set, or for whatever reason. How do they pay the rent or the mortgage, put food on the table? We are stuck with an economic model that doesn't work, as Hippifried said a while ago -there seems to be a paralysis of imaginative thinking on economics: what's next? And why doesn't Australia with its 'young population' and excellent education system, come up with something new?

[Birgitta]

The reason why its such a mess all over the world is because of the selfish nature of humans...honest people that want to take care and help others do so at their own expense....you will more likely be used as someone doing the dirty work for little money then be appreciated for it....we are rewarding those that have stolen people of their rights, resources, identity, selfworth and are labeling the small thief "criminal" and corrupt goverments that steal laaarge amounts of the people as simply politics, is it coz they brainwashed you so much that you look up to those that dont give a shit about the world, your health & your life ?

[robertlouis]

Hey Robert ask them if our government would give the Australian people a plebisite or how the government is doing in the polls or if they will ever get re elected again after lying to the voters and you ask me about a conspiracy?Ask them about our government wanting to scrap our industries and put thousands out of work to please their socialist supporters

Sorry Russ, I had to respond to this point. If you honestly believe that any democratically-elected government would knowingly do what you're suggesting, you're a credulous fool, and you need help.

And for the record, it's spelled plebiscite. Clearly not enough classical Greek scholars on this Forum. What is the world coming to? :)

[russtafa]

and that's beside the point but did you ask your relo's what Australians think of the Australian labour/greens government and their designs on Australia and no i'm not a fool for not trusting these thieving traitors .if your relo's tell you Australians love our shit of a government i know they are telling you porky's

[Prospero]

lol... I have egg on my face after incorrectly correcting Russtafa's spelling of Plebiscite. The lord moves in mysterious ways.

Interesting to know if Russtafa's view of the greens is shaped by the venom of the Murdoch press?

[russtafa]

no i hate the greens because they want to close our coal mines and put thousands of people out of work and hurt our very prosperous economy and make it very hard for the workers to make a living. the greens want to tax our power stations out of existence so yes i hate them

[Prospero]

So you're into the short term good of white australians and not the long term good of the planet and its other inhabitants, Russtafa?

[Faldur]

So you're into the short term good of white australians and not the long term good of the planet and its other inhabitants, Russtafa?

Well how the heck do you expect them to charge all of your green electric cars your forcing on the free public? Its laughable how environmentalists think electricity magically comes out of a wall socket all by its self.

And rather than beat down a country that has green energy policies how about focusing your efforts on places like China and India, where there are no such policies? It is estimated that by 2030 China's emissions alone will equal the amount of pollutants produced by today's world population.

[Stavros]

I don't know why this thread lost its way, but as for Australia, its a continent with a long history of extreme weather events. On the other hand, I am surprised that the capital and talent in Australia has not been at the forefront of solar energy -and for that matter, pioneers in the water conservation industry -or maybe they are and I missed something. I don't know that these are labour intensive jobs after front end engineering has been done, but the scope for growth in 'Green industry' is something practical that goes beyond the politics of environmentalism which has become a battlefield in which Trotskyists mingle with Sunday afternoon Socialists, bearded cranks in sandals, and men in suits -and sometimes white coats too...let's at least get beyond the classroom and the soap box, and think of some work-related, commercially-sensible policies that won't heal the planet, but could at least make it a nicer place to live in, including Melbourne...and Sydney...and so on.

[robertlouis]

I don't know why this thread lost its way, but as for Australia, its a continent with a long history of extreme weather events. On the other hand, I am surprised that the capital and talent in Australia has not been at the forefront of solar energy -and for that matter, pioneers in the water conservation industry -or maybe they are and I missed something. I don't know that these are labour intensive jobs after front end engineering has been done, but the scope for growth in 'Green industry' is something practical that goes beyond the politics of environmentalism which has become a battlefield in which Trotskyists mingle with Sunday afternoon Socialists, bearded cranks in sandals, and men in suits -and sometimes white coats too...let's at least get beyond the classroom and the soap box, and think of some work-related, commercially-sensible policies that won't heal the planet, but could at least make it a nicer place to live in, including Melbourne...and Sydney...and so on.

My brother-in-law, originally from Bavaria but an Australian resident for nearly 50 years, responded thus when I mentioned my surprise at the fact that there appeared to be fewer solar panels in Oz than in the UK or Germany - the provision of very cheap domestic energy generated by native fossil fuels made the perceived need for using solar and other green power sources a low priority for both government and populace. Make of that what you will.

He's an extremely bright bloke, a civil engineer and a self-made millionaire, with no love for left-wing politics or their practitioners (which makes for lively debates twixt him and yours truly over a beer!), but he's pragmatic enough to recognise that taken in the round, that attitude has to be short-sighted and potentially damaging.

We had that conversation a few years back on my last visit to Sydney and I'll certainly revisit it while he's here.

[trish]

It is estimated that there is enough easily mined coal in the Earth's crust to last us at least another thousand years (given our current rate of energy consumption). A lot of that coal is in China, which is why they opening up fifty new coal burning plants every month. [An easy to read source on this and other related issues is Physics for Future Presidents by Richard Muller] Concern only for the bottom line (i.e. profit in the case of the free-market energy producers and quick development in the case of communist China) will (imo) make fossil fuels irresistibly appealing to the world's energy producers for the next thousand years, or until climate shift itself effects the market (though it's not clear how readily perceived shifts in the climate would effect the fossil fuel market since the shift is likely to create an even greater demand and strain on energy production).

Roughly 1000 kw of power strikes each sunlit square meter of the Earth's surface. Handful of square kilometers can theoretically power a city. The problem is that word theoretically. Our current methods of solar collection and transduction are highly inefficient. It is doubtful that even future technology can achieve more than 60% efficiency.

Here's an idea. Link every keyboard in the world to transducer that converts keystrokes into electrical energy and send it directly to the grid. The world's perverts alone should be able to supply the Earth with enough power to run every major industry. In the meantime, stop using battery powered dildos and try a little elbow grease.

[Stavros]

China does have a lot of coal, I was there one winter and you could smell it, and by 4pm on a clear day the sky was somewhere between orange and copper in colour ...and that's not just a sunset....

Here's an idea. Link every keyboard in the world to transducer that converts keystrokes into electrical energy and send it directly to the grid. The world's perverts alone should be able to supply the Earth with enough power to run every major industry

For heaven's sake Trish -suppose Murdoch is reading this? Don't give the guy ideas for a new business venture! Yes, at the moment solar panels can power a house but cost a lot to buy and install, but cannot power a city -but that doesn't mean solar power should not be more widespread particularly in Australia.

the provision of very cheap domestic energy generated by native fossil fuels made the perceived need for using solar and other green power sources a low priority for both government and populace. Make of that what you will.
Thanks for the clarification RLS -but surely, Australians with solar power could go from cheap energy to free energy? Solar-powered homes usually generate more power than they need so that householders sell the excess to the power companies -economic sense suggests its a better deal to go solar...I am sure Russtafa would prefer to pay nothing for his Barby...

[russtafa]

we are currently a great exporter of coal to China and Australia has a very high standard of living which enables us to afford to be one of the highest taxed countries in the world,but if our coal mines are closed we can forget our great welfare system.with this carbon tax the government wants to force on its voters which will close the mines and force unemployment up and the cost of living up.the government is now standing at 27 percent in the polls,that's the lowest standing since 2001 and i think they will continue to fall because of their policys

[trish]

if our coal mines are closed we can forget our great welfare system.So what? You can't use that as an argument because you don't want the welfare system to begin with.


this carbon tax the government wants to force on its voters which will close the mines and force unemployment up and the cost of living up.This is all pure conjecture__propaganda fed to you by the coal industry and their supporters. If you had your fingers in some of the most productive mines in the world, there is no amount of tax that would stand between you and a profit? Of course not. More than likely the extra cost will just be passed along to the Chinese to whom you sell__and besides, coal is cheap.


government is now standing at 27 percent in the pollsIs that as all relevant to the issue?? It only stands as testament to what people believe and will likely do__it has nothing to do with truth or wise policy.

[russtafa]

relevant to the issue the government will fall and the party wont rise again for along time

[trish]

I see you have no reply to my first two points. I take it you agree with me then. Your reply to my last point is:

relevant to the issue the government will fall and the party wont rise again for along timeBut surely the issue isn't whether the current administration rises and falls. You began this thread questioning the much larger issue of the effects of welfare on society. You wound up discussing what role a tax would have on jobs and coal. The former can be settled by a popular vote. But the answers to these latter questions, even though a vote could render them mute, are independent of popular vote.

[runningdownthatdream]

I see you have no reply to my first two points. I take it you agree with me then. Your reply to my last point is:
But surely the issue isn't whether the current administration rises and falls. You began this thread questioning the much larger issue of the effects of welfare on society. You wound up discussing what role a tax would have on jobs and coal. The former can be settled by a popular vote. But the answers to these latter questions, even though a vote could render them mute, are independent of popular vote.

I get the impression Russ is a simple man living in complicated times who becomes indignant whenever the answer to a problem isn't as straightforward as he thinks it should be. From his posts it seems he is trying to tie all of Australia's problems to political decisions rather than seeing that the politics are driven by the problems.

[russtafa]

i think its a waste of money and resources to provide welfare to perfectly able people how should be working.welfare should be there for the elderly or disabled and no others.if there is no work the government should be there to find or make work for people

[Stavros]

Back to where this thread began...if Rupert Murdoch goes broke, is he liable for housing benefit if he returns to the land of his birth?

[robertlouis]

China does have a lot of coal, I was there one winter and you could smell it, and by 4pm on a clear day the sky was somewhere between orange and copper in colour ...and that's not just a sunset....

Here's an idea. Link every keyboard in the world to transducer that converts keystrokes into electrical energy and send it directly to the grid. The world's perverts alone should be able to supply the Earth with enough power to run every major industry

For heaven's sake Trish -suppose Murdoch is reading this? Don't give the guy ideas for a new business venture! Yes, at the moment solar panels can power a house but cost a lot to buy and install, but cannot power a city -but that doesn't mean solar power should not be more widespread particularly in Australia.

the provision of very cheap domestic energy generated by native fossil fuels made the perceived need for using solar and other green power sources a low priority for both government and populace. Make of that what you will.
Thanks for the clarification RLS -but surely, Australians with solar power could go from cheap energy to free energy? Solar-powered homes usually generate more power than they need so that householders sell the excess to the power companies -economic sense suggests its a better deal to go solar...I am sure Russtafa would prefer to pay nothing for his Barby...

Solar energy is not free until you have achieved payback over the cost of purchase and installation, as we know well enough in the UK, and at the time my BiL and I had the conversation (2007) neither the federal nor the state governments in Oz were offering any incentive to convert, so anyone wishing to do so had to bear the entire cost themselves.

[robertlouis]

i think its a waste of money and resources to provide welfare to perfectly able people how should be working.welfare should be there for the elderly or disabled and no others.if there is no work the government should be there to find or make work for people

That's all well and good in theory, Russ, and it has been the case successfully in the past as we have already discussed. Right now, however, in most western economies following the financial crash - and why aren't the fucking bankers making a contribution, we could at least help the greedy bastards count their obscene bonuses - the jobs simply aren't there, and when there are jobs, they aren't necessarily in the right places. And governments simply don't have the funds, or indeed the political will, to pump prime such initiatives.

[russtafa]

Our governments are so lacking the teeth to deal with them?

[beandip]

Welfare is a generational lifestyle bitchez.......and it's cummin' to a fukkin HALT.

Enjoy the riots assclowns!


I will, from my perch.

[trish]

Wealth and Power are addictive, and they destroy all those around it. Help multi-billionaires break the habit...TAX THEM.

[beandip]

Enjoy the MYTH dummy. Don't let real math get in the way.

&#x202a;Bill Whittle - Taxes can&#39;t Solve the Deficit (Mathimatically Impossible)&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNF8HYh59Rs&feature=player_embedded)

We've crossed the Rubicon and no amount of taxation (taking from GDP) can even come close.....
buy hey....keep on with the bullshit dumocratic class warfare....it has served you SO WELL so far.

Not.

[Faldur]

Come on this president has done something well, he has more people on food stamps by far than any other.. Hopie changie!!

[russtafa]

masses of unemployed=riots

[trish]

A few exorbitantly rich and powerful families = oligarchy

[russtafa]

Army =shooting rioters

[russtafa]

The rich are not affected it's the workers that are suffering from these criminals

[trish]

And it's the workers who are suffering from busted unions, low pay for high production rates, no share and exploitation. You're right. The rich don't give a damn.

[russtafa]

but Trish these people are suffering now from criminals .the rich are not setting their houses on fire or robbing their shops or beating them up

[Stavros]

Enjoy the MYTH dummy. Don't let real math get in the way.

Beandip, I watched Whittle's video, and he has managed, as it were, to Whittle down the math, as you put it, to end up with a penny whistle of an argument. I don't think I have ever seen such a crass piece of disinformation on economics, it might be worthy of the Tea Party's version of Saturday Night Live, but in the real world values are not always expressed in dollars -the mere fact that Whittle is so parochial he can't see beyond the borders of the USA is enough. Entertaining, but as an explanation of the economic malaise on America, utterly useless.

[Stavros]

Army =shooting rioters

It is sadly ironic, Russtafa, that you should post this during three days of looting in London and elsewhere. In some of the papers today people are calling for something similar, I even saw a call for 'Martial Law' -as if the UK had the ability to impose it, which is not the case.

Two issues are outstanding to me: one is the way in which feral youth express their impotent rage with an attack on property; the other is the way in which the 'threatened' middle classes express their impotence by calling for an attack on people.

The other is the whole question of the city, more properly the 'mega-city', and the city of perpetual night envisaged in Blade Runner.

On the one hand we in the UK have now had so many decades of individualism that there is no sense of us being in the UK 'together' -people who have never worked, and will probably never hold down a job, live invisible lives on the margin, unless they get caught stealing. Not all are druggies, many have swapped broken homes for gangs, almost all are unwelcome in society 'at large' -but does this society even exist any more? The indifference to the margins is observed when people, thinking of 'solutions', want to to call in the army, shoot-on-sight options, anything except jobs, anything except the expensive and painfully slow attempt to reach young people and give them an alternative.

Second, are our cities becoming clusters of privilege and neglect that are too complex for a city government to manage? Is it, must it be the case that jobs are in cities, or jobs on the farm? I wonder if we need a re-think of the way in which we live, but its a long-term issue with no simple answers.

[russtafa]

yes but bashing and robbing or setting workers houses ?or what do you do let them rob, bash,set fire,loot from these people.because people that are having this done to them want answers

[Yvonne183]

Ha ha ha,, a few pics of Baltimore i found online to welcome the London liberals to your future if you don't make a stand and stop the thuggery. Baltimore has had these slow moving riots ever since the 60's. Burn a home here and there, loot a business here and there, just a slow continuation of filth from the thugs. Now the thugs use the internet to gather the troops and cause havoc in a particular place, You won't see these thugs do this in rural areas cause they know they will be shot on the spot. So Londoners, I welcome you your new world order of thuggery, Welcome to the jungle, lol.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3645/3667092602_6e5b700ce9.jpg





http://media02.hongkiat.com/urban-decay-photography/3771516836.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2571/3668192106_8aa450cb84.jpg

[Stavros]

Yvonne
I don't live in London, but I lived there for years, and the problems it has had over several centuries are sadly typical of most of the world's major cities and capitals; and I am sure other people have seen The Wire. Txting and Tweeting have been more relevant than 'the internet', none of which offers either an explanation for the looting, or a solution to its causes, neither of which you have addressed. It is sadly all too easy for people detached from the reality to respond with -curiously enough- the same violence that has got them upset, as if it was violence that could solve it.

By contrast, I ask you to read this piece by a courageous woman called Camilla Batmanghelidjh who has worked with violent, disturbed feral youth for years and often turned their lives around -someone who has the courage to offer practical solutions by going into the battlefield rather than sitting at home and getting into a lather about it.

Camila Batmanghelidjh: Caring costs – but so do riots

These rioters feel they don't actually belong to the community. For years, they’ve felt cut adrift from society
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
[/URL]Shops looted, cars and buildings burnt out, young adults in hoods on the rampage.
London has woken up to street violence, and the usual narratives have emerged – punish those responsible for the violence because they are "opportunist criminals" and "disgusting thieves". The slightly more intellectually curious might blame the trouble on poor police relations or lack of policing.


My own view is that the police in this country do an impressive job and unjustly carry the consequences of a much wider social dysfunction. Before you take a breath of sarcasm thinking "here she goes, excusing the criminals with some sob story", I want to begin by stating two things. First, violence and looting can never be justified. Second, for those of us working at street level, we're not surprised by these events.
Twitter and Facebook have kept the perverse momentum going, transmitting invitations such as: "Bare shops are gonna get smashed up. So come, get some (free stuff!!!!) F... the feds we will send them back with OUR riot! Dead the ends and colour war for now. So If you see a brother... SALUTE! If you see a fed... SHOOT!"
If this is a war, the enemy, on the face of it, are the "lawless", the defenders are the law-abiding. An absence of morality can easily be found in the rioters and looters. How, we ask, could they attack their own community with such disregard? But the young people would reply "easily", because they feel they don't actually belong to the community. Community, they would say, has nothing to offer them. Instead, for years they have experienced themselves cut adrift from civil society's legitimate structures. Society relies on collaborative behaviour; individuals are held accountable because belonging brings personal benefit. Fear or shame of being alienated keeps most of us pro-social.
Working at street level in London, over a number of years, many of us have been concerned about large groups of young adults creating their own parallel antisocial communities with different rules. The individual is responsible for their own survival because the established community is perceived to provide nothing. Acquisition of goods through violence is justified in neighbourhoods where the notion of dog eat dog pervades and the top dog survives the best. The drug economy facilitates a parallel subculture with the drug dealer producing more fiscally efficient solutions than the social care agencies who are too under-resourced to compete.
The insidious flourishing of anti-establishment attitudes is paradoxically helped by the establishment. It grows when a child is dragged by their mother to social services screaming for help and security guards remove both; or in the shiny academies which, quietly, rid themselves of the most disturbed kids. Walk into the mental hospitals and there is nothing for the patients to do except peel the wallpaper. Go to the youth centre and you will find the staff have locked themselves up in the office because disturbed young men are dominating the space with their violent dogs. Walk on the estate stairwells with your baby in a buggy manoeuvring past the condoms, the needles, into the lift where the best outcome is that you will survive the urine stench and the worst is that you will be raped. The border police arrive at the neighbour's door to grab an "over-stayer" and his kids are screaming. British children with no legal papers have mothers surviving through prostitution and still there's not enough food on the table.
It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped. Savagery is a possibility within us all. Some of us have been lucky enough not to have to call upon it for survival; others, exhausted from failure, can justify resorting to it.
Our leaders still speak about how protecting the community is vital. The trouble is, the deal has gone sour. The community has selected who is worthy of help and who is not. In this false moral economy where the poor are described as dysfunctional, the community fails. One dimension of this failure is being acted out in the riots; the lawlessness is, suddenly, there for all to see. Less visible is the perverse insidious violence delivered through legitimate societal structures. Check out the price of failing to care.
I got a call yesterday morning. The kids gave me a run-down of what had happened in Brixton. A street party had been invaded by a group of young men out to grab. A few years ago, the kids who called me would have joined in, because they had nothing to lose. One had been permanently excluded from six schools. When he first arrived at Kids Company he cared so little that he would smash his head into a pane of glass and bite his own flesh off with rage. He'd think nothing of hurting others. After intensive social care and support he walked away when the riots began because he held more value in his membership of a community that has embraced him than a community that demanded his dark side.
It costs money to care. But it also costs money to clear up riots, savagery and antisocial behaviour. I leave it to you to do the financial and moral sums.
Camila Batmanghelidjh is founder of the charities The Place To Be and Kids Company
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/camila-batmanghelidjh-caring-costs-ndash-but-so-do-riots-2333991.html (http://www.google.com/url?ct=abg&q=https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py%3Fcontact%3Dabg_afc%26url%3Dhttp://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/camila-batmanghelidjh-caring-costs-ndash-but-so-do-riots-2333991.html%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dca-pub-5964551156905038%26adU%3Dwww.GFTuk.com%26adT%3DSpr ead%2BBetting%2B-%2BTry%2BNow%26adU%3Dwww.VirginGames.com/BlackJack%26adT%3DVirgin%2BCasino%2B-%2BBlackJack%26adU%3Dwww.Train4TradeSkills.com%26a dT%3DBecome%2BAn%2BElectrician%253F%26adU%3DHomeph onechoices.co.uk/New-Line%26adT%3DNew%2BPhone%2BLine%2B%25C2%25A30%26gl %3DGB&usg=AFQjCNGKl4ppnVgt511WRPhR4H2ejB_NRg)

[Stavros]

Yvonne can you reduce the size of the pictorials? Its not necessary to have such giant photos of Baltimore, or anywhere else.

[russtafa]

these young criminals would not be permitted these crimes in Malaysia because the government has the solution

[Yvonne183]

Starvos, I understand what that person writes and I understand all the blame for trouble is placed on poverty and people who feel they don't belong. But my point is why is this happening in the UK? I am on other forums and most times I read posts on how the UK is so much better than the barbaric US. How we in the US treat others harshly and don't give a crap about how other people feel. From what I read about people from the UK,, the UK is supposed to be this land of diversity, this land unlike the US where social services are given to all.

I guess I am wrong in what I read about the UK,, you lot seem a lot like the rednecks in the US, intolerant goons keeping the lower class in their place, otherwise these poor misguided youth would have every opportunity to life's pleasures if the UK was really understanding. ha ha.

Anyways, I don't believe in the theory that being poor makes one go out and loot. My parents and lot of other people went through the Great Depression without looting and burning buildings down, the poverty excuse is hogwash.

So since I have been out of work most of my life, that should give me the right to burn your home down Starvos. OK I wouldn't have the right to do that but would you just stand there watching me burn your house with the thoughts that you "understand" why I do it, or would you try and stop me?

Thugs are thugs, people should have the right to defend their homes and if that means killing the thugs, then so be it,, but you guys can't do that,, no guns. So your future is thugs will rule, just like in most liberal ghetto US cities. It will come your way, it is here in Baltimore, Detroit, St Louis, Orleans, just give it a few more years and your cities will be the same

[Yvonne183]

Yvonne can you reduce the size of the pictorials? Its not necessary to have such giant photos of Baltimore, or anywhere else.

Don't tell me what size picture I can or can not post. While I removed my big pic,, my pic was in equal size to quite a few pics of the girls in other threads. Starvos, go tell them to stop posting big pics.

[Stavros]

Yvonne: re the picture, no need to get upset, it was just a request, it makes it harder to read text when pictures are so big.

The social services here have been under strain for years -it may be true that we have a national health service, that there are social services for the elderly, the disabled, for children and vulnerable young people, and relative to some countries it is better, whereas some argue it is far better organised in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. As the costs of welfare provision rise and the funding sources contract, the strains set in. This is part of a major debate in the UK at the moment; about how much the state should take in taxes, what it should spend it on, and what the alternatives are in a state where job losses are not being replaced tax revenue with it.

An additional dimension is the depth of youth unemployment, which is not as bad as it is, for example, in Spain, but which is bad where it is geographically concentrated in deprived areas of large cities -this not only means that 'feral young' are likely to group together, it also means that if something 'kicks off' there will be more people involved and it will look ugly. Although there have been serious riots over the years -there was a so-called 'race riot' in Notting Hill Gate in 1958 and sporadic incidents since then- they have tended to be explosive and then calm down. In Tottenham, the area of North London where a black man was shot dead over last weekend, triggering some of the protests that escalated into these lootings, there was a severe riot in 1985. I knew one of the 'worthy people' who went in after it to begin a long process of healing, reconstruction, and to some extent it worked. In fact most people are fed up with the way a marginal group of people can cause so much damage -but it doesn't need that many; this isn't a revolution.

As Camilla has put it so well, however, just as was seen in The Wire, there are young people from broken homes who form closer bonds within a gang set-up, which feeds into a sub-culture with its own rules, its own dress codes and where carrying knives and even guns are totems of power. Its a common enough phenomenon. Essentially these people are powerless, and once they engage in criminal activity they cross the boundary and their ability to get a job is diminished. Plenty of poor people do not riot or loot or stab people, but if you join a gang and the gang becomes involved in illegal drug trading and so on, at some point violence is a strong possibility.

I haven't lived in London for years, and only go there these days if I have to and try not to be out on the street after 11, even in central areas, but some of the BMs who live there can give it a more accurate picture.

I don't think its fair to say our crime has been 'Americanised' -the lingo, the rap, the dress may look and sound like American 'ghetto chic' -but I think it has something to do with being unemployed in a big city -possessing nothing in a culture that encourages possession.

In fact not only was I robbed a few years ago when I was at work, the next day when I was at home, one or two of the persons responsible came back for more. I confronted her as she tried to get in and she legged it. Either she or her boyfriend had turned the place over the day before, one of them left a cap on the floor when they took a laptop etc -both known to the police, both drug users who have been in and out of prison, the police told me neither were violent. They were never charged because the dna on the cap was insufficient. I knew when she tried to get in who it was, so, would I have attacked her? Or, if I had arrived home when she or her boyfriend were robbing me? No. I am not a violent person, and consider it an unacceptable response to confrontation. I used to see victims of violent crime in a job I had in central London years ago, I have no illusions about violence in the real world, so different as it is from films and tv.

So I am sorry to disillusion you about the quality of life in the UK, which isn't all the bad, but which is certainly not as great as some think it is.

[russtafa]

i consider violence a great option when some one try's to steal or hurt me or mine and it usually works very nicely .i was a bouncer for years in the clubs around Australia and have had a few dealing's with these pocket gangster's[pocket gangster=you can fit them in your pocket] and if they get hurt they run to the police lol