Skint

Paying £800 interest on a £2,500 telly indicates the poverty trap? You must be fecking kidding me?

If that's the poverty trap it goes to show that it's near enough been eradicated.

This guy puts the c*nt in Scunthorpe.

Simmo and Clivex have it spot on here, despite being from opposite ends of the spectrum. The system is crazy - welfare should be to lift people out of genuine poverty and offer a helping hand to those in genuine need. If you can afford a two and a half grand telly you are getting too much, simple as that.
 
icebreaker said:
Cannot see the difference mehself, tbh.
Both are getting "money from the taxpayer". But while one can buy a TV with the blessing of you good folks, the other is vilified for doing so.
But hey, if its a two-tier society that you want ..............

In case it gets lost in the blur of debate, let's not forget that Dean Bell was a steelworker until he lost his job in the economic slowdown. No fault of his. A policeman will only lose his job for gross misconduct. If he is prepared to make a big sacrifice in taking a sizable deduction on his weekly benefit income in order to provide a home entertainment system for his family, then he has my blessing.
Click to expand...


So anyone working in the public sector: police, judges, nurses, teachers etc.....they should be considered no different in terms of their societal contibution than this Dean geezer?

What a load of utter c*ck.
 
I don't know where I ever suggested that the respective contribution to society of Dean Bell and a policeman or teacher are the same, Mr Grass.
But the fact that they are not isn't Dean Bell's fault. He had a job; he lost it due to economic circumstances -- the policeman has a guaranteed job for life ( and a pension to boot). They are both human beings, citizens of the same country, both being paid by "taxpayers money" -- only difference is one is fortunate to have a job whilst the other doesn't.

But I understand where you're coming from: it is the belief of your's and of many others on here that the unemployed should not have access to home luxury items even if they pay for it themselves. I would disagree, naturally, with that assessment. One poster -- a Socialist, mind -- even declares that Bell should be deported for daring to break this taboo.

BennyB said:
Paying £800 interest on a £2,500 telly indicates the poverty trap?
Click to expand...
Yes. That and the fact that a person is obliged by force of circumstance to buy a stolen chicken to provide dinner for his family clearly illustrates the poverty trap ensnaring a sizeable proportion of the poorer population.
Simmo and Clivex have it spot on here, despite being from opposite ends of the spectrum.
Click to expand...
Thanks for re-iterating that for me, for re-inforcing what I said in an earlier post -- the conservative Right and nu-Socialism have a political mindset and social credo that is a lot closer to one another at its kernel than they would like to think.
 
icebreaker,

An example of the poverty trap is when you are a single parent who wants to work, but can't actually do so as the jobs you are able to get pay less than the benefits you are entitled to (not that this is very much) weighed against the cost of childcare.

This isn't an example of a poverty trap - it's an example of a ******* idiot. How many roast chickens could he buy for the weekly fee over the course of the years he will be paying this TV off?
 
Icebreaker. I've read some dreadful student politics on here from apologists for bin laden to laughable Stalinist economics but this is the biggest load of drivel yet

I still believe you are on the wind up.


If not...

you think people in the middle ground of politics are comfortable with this scenario? Have you ever been out?
 
Clive,
Attack the argument not the arguer, no?

To paraphrase Dean Bell, F*** the common middle ground. I really don't care about the middle ground. I have my own particular political position, Anarcho-Syndicalism, wich I hold true to. Which is more than can be said for some on here.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2
 
Perhaps if you thought this through you would undertsand that thgis family are the best lobbiests yet for benefit cuts. Considered that ? Those voters that might not have a strong position on this issue and also cant afford 1200 tvs might just start to think the system is skewed. Considered that at all ?

Try living in the real world rather than some srtudent dorm
 
'Been a long time since I saw the inside of a student dorm, sir.
And I venture to say that the subsequent 40 years of my adult life have been spent living in a real world much more gritty and realism-filled than your own good self.

The rest of your post illustrates your paucity of thought on political issues and social matters. I would go so far as to call it naivete.
You consider this; the welfare state is a construct of western capitalism. Social Welfare was devised by Capitalism solely to protect itself. While Capitalism was unable to provide the decent jobs for the masses, it was incumbent upon it to provide the dirt-poor with some sort of sustenance. Keep the barbarians from the gate. Capitalism might be coarse and crude, but it is not stupid. It read the runes of history. and learned from it. A mass of unemployed people without food will inevitably result in revolution. Thus, Capitalism throws some crumbs from its table to placate the poor.

Consequently, Capitalism in the current era will not abandon the social welfare system. To do so would be for Capitalism to indulge in a spate of self-harming and bloodletting. Capitalism will tinker around the edges with social welfare as a populist sop to its supporters, but it will never forsake the welfare system. Dean Bell doesn't have to worry.
 
icebreaker said:
I don't know where I ever suggested that the respective contribution to society of Dean Bell and a policeman or teacher are the same, Mr Grass.
But the fact that they are not isn't Dean Bell's fault. He had a job; he lost it due to economic circumstances -- the policeman has a guaranteed job for life ( and a pension to boot). They are both human beings, citizens of the same country, both being paid by "taxpayers money" -- only difference is one is fortunate to have a job whilst the other doesn't.

But I understand where you're coming from: it is the belief of your's and of many others on here that the unemployed should not have access to home luxury items even if they pay for it themselves. I would disagree, naturally, with that assessment. One poster -- a Socialist, mind -- even declares that Bell should be deported for daring to break this taboo.


Yes. That and the fact that a person is obliged by force of circumstance to buy a stolen chicken to provide dinner for his family clearly illustrates the poverty trap ensnaring a sizeable proportion of the poorer population.

Thanks for re-iterating that for me, for re-inforcing what I said in an earlier post -- the conservative Right and nu-Socialism have a political mindset and social credo that is a lot closer to one another at its kernel than they would like to think.
Click to expand...

Drivel on every level. :cool:
 
:lol:

Class. Did you think of that all by yourself?

I've lost every argument I've ever had with Anarcho Syndicalists, icebreaker - they're far too clever for me. Why embarrass myself. ;)
 
Welfare was set up by voters who endorsed parties that implemented and maintained the system. I know thats a very complex concept but im afraid thats the way it is
 
icebreaker said:
I have my own particular political position, Anarcho-Syndicalism, wich I hold true to.
Click to expand...

Do you live in a commune? Are you being repressed? Should we all come and see the violence inherent in the system?

PS Socialists throughout history have deported and executed unbelievers and wastrels with stunning regularity.
 
Back
Top