RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Aswad -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 12:08:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

And if its one of those stupid people that play the system, it seems that they will go to any lengths just to fiddle the system of as much cash as they can legitimately get.


Those people are literally irrelevant. Don't legislate based on marginal cases. It never ends well, and you end up spending a ton of money on doing nothing good (and, in the process, you end up getting fucked over yourself).

quote:

Personally, I think it's morally wrong and why I think it's a good idea to cap the system so these rogues can't fiddle more money just because they are fortunate enough to be able to do so.


Stop being a crab in the bucket and start being concerned with how you can get the life you want.

quote:

I think the main thing that really gets my goat is the fact that they openly admit it's what they are doing and they get away with it because the system is the way it is.


What gets your goat is envy. Ditching it will make your life better in and of itself.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 12:08:39 PM)

quote:

Sorry Taz, I know of at least 3 people in my small circle where that has happened.


3 people that have had multiple pregnancies that were all extremely preterm and then got pregnant within a week of delivering. That is your claim.



tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 12:11:31 PM)

quote:

And your last bit... Isn't that exactly what I've just said??
Cap the system so you get no further help after x many kids?


And its what I said was the wrong way to go. Not cap on number of children. Cap on the amount of time you are allowed to draw the benefits. Exceptions can always be made. Those exceptions should not be the rule.

quote:

As for getting an education in anything let alone a marketable skill, for most of the people on benefits, that isn't an option in the UK - there just aren't that many opportunities or available training places to do that.


Then dont you think your time would be better spent advocating for that positive change instead of penalizing women for what you just admitted is a cycle they cant get out of?



Aswad -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 12:15:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Sorry Taz, I know of at least 3 people in my small circle where that has happened.


This is where you lose all credibility. Any area with three women getting six children each with no delay is a medical miracle of the sort the pope will want to look into in case one of these gave birth to the Second Coming. Seriously, I could probably get a doctor to pay you good money for their names so they can be contacted about a study (which, if you're right about them gaming the system for money, is an offer they should jump at).

quote:

I know you shouldn't extrapolate to encompass the whole population but isn't that exactly what all these studies and polls and adverts do?


First off, don't look to adverts for facts.

Second, no, it's not what studies and polls do, and explaining the difference to you would mean teaching you statistics that are probably outside your grasp.

quote:

And your last bit... Isn't that exactly what I've just said?? Cap the system so you get no further help after x many kids?


No, she said cap the time.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 1:19:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

My first wife, if the dates are right, must have fallen pregnant within days of losing our first one at 3 days old because our next one was born at 32 weeks from his death - give or take a day or two.


32 weeks isnt 8 months.. thats a fallacy.

Some months have 5 weeks... so to say at 32 weeks she is 8 months is just not correct. Nor does it mean much in medical lingo.

If you really want to be technical in your numbers, the normal genstational period of a fetus is 10 months.... 40 weeks.

So, 32 weeks is actually very premature.

Want to know how accurate the dates are? Ask for the Dubowitz score.... its more accurate than just a guess on a wheel.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Dubowitz+score

40 weeks isn't 10 months.
There's something wrong with your calendar.

9 months is 39 weeks, give or take a day or two depending which 9 consecutive months you choose to include.
There are 13 weeks in every 3 months.
That's where you get the idea that there are 5 weeks in some months; but there are no months longer than 31 days and that's well short of 5 weeks (which would be 35 days).


Anyway, we digress.
This thread is about people who are welfare scrounging and we know far too many people just having shed-loads of kids as soon as possible to grab welfare benefits. In many of the cases I have witnessed or know personally, that means sleeping with as many guys as possible to get pregnant at the earliest possibility.
Just that in those cases I know personally, that means most of the brats were dropped early and they fell prgnant virtually immediately. My OH also said her best friend at school has had 6 kids, 3 of which were all born 40 weeks apart from each other - so that's another case I wasn't aware of that breaks your rule book and medical knowledge.



Moonhead -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 1:22:15 PM)

So you don't think that making it easier to get housing benefit would reduce the current explosion in teen pregnancies and the hordes of chavling rugrats who are destroying the education system, then?



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 1:26:21 PM)

Sorry Aswad, that's what they do here.
Maybe they don't in Norway where you are but they certainly do that in the UK.

Many adverts we see on TV where they say something akin to 72% of people agree.... and when you read the small print scrolling along the bottom it reveals that the sample was only 107 people in the survey.

The same is for TV viewing figures.
They extrapolate the whole country from less than 1,000 people in the survey.

And for many other figures such as the number of hospitals with acute bed shortages - but only based on 95 hospitals that were asked for figures.

It happens all the time here.



Moonhead -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 1:30:03 PM)

So what percentage of a person agreed?
(72% of 107 isn't a whole number, which makes the example you cite sound even stupider, true enough...)



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 1:31:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So you don't think that making it easier to get housing benefit would reduce the current explosion in teen pregnancies and the hordes of chavling rugrats who are destroying the education system, then?


I'm saying that if the system didn't pay out willy-nilly just because some slut won't keep her legs shut and capped the number of kids she could claim for, she might not have so many if she didn't get the extra cash or be given the bigger houses.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 1:33:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

So what percentage of a person agreed?
(72% of 107 isn't a whole number, which makes the example you cite sound even stupider, true enough...)

I know it doesn't. lol.
I took that quote from a L'Oreal hair colouring advert that was on TV as I was typing the post.
But there are many adverts just like that one.

The mind boggles how they manipulate the numbers.



Moonhead -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 1:36:17 PM)

You'd think that somebody would sit down with the copywriter and a calculator and hit them if the figure they give is that sort of nonsense, really. It's clearly a failure of management...



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 1:38:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

And your last bit... Isn't that exactly what I've just said??
Cap the system so you get no further help after x many kids?


And its what I said was the wrong way to go. Not cap on number of children. Cap on the amount of time you are allowed to draw the benefits. Exceptions can always be made. Those exceptions should not be the rule.

quote:

As for getting an education in anything let alone a marketable skill, for most of the people on benefits, that isn't an option in the UK - there just aren't that many opportunities or available training places to do that.


Then dont you think your time would be better spent advocating for that positive change instead of penalizing women for what you just admitted is a cycle they cant get out of?


The problem is taz, if you cap the time they are allowed to draw from the system, we would have a lot of people out on the streets with absolutely nothing at all.
Then people would be moaning that our system is unfair on those that cannot find work or are disabled.

And if there just isn't the opportunity to train people in marketable(?) skills, where do you go from there?
There aren't the facilities nor the people to do the training.
So much for a positive change - it wouldn't be positive because what you are advocating just isn't possible here.
At least not yet or in the near future.

Our government wouldn't allow that scenario.




tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 1:42:48 PM)

quote:

40 weeks isn't 10 months.
There's something wrong with your calendar.

9 months is 39 weeks, give or take a day or two depending which 9 consecutive months you choose to include.


To someone in the public, 40 weeks is 10 months.

Full term, medically speaking, is anywhere between 38 and 42 weeks.

Having a baby at 32 weeks is extremely premature.

Not to mention the date is set by the date of a woman's menstrual cycle, not by the exact date she got pregnant.

My son was born at 41.3 weeks. His Dubowitz score was 39.2 weeks.

But we arent talking about the time of gestation.. well.. Im not.. its set pretty much in stone once I see the dubowitz score. Until then, its all a guess-timate.

After birth, many things determine how fast she gets pregnant again. Breast feeding slows up the process. It also depends on when she ovulates again. The cycle has to kick in once again before a pregnancy can even occur.

I have been a part of literally over 1000's deliveries, and with the rare exception of a woman giving birth before the date of her last delivery, meaning in less than a year, was extremely rare.

Guess you are just lucky enough to know the abnormalities.




tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 1:44:50 PM)

quote:

The problem is taz, if you cap the time they are allowed to draw from the system, we would have a lot of people out on the streets with absolutely nothing at all.
Then people would be moaning that our system is unfair on those that cannot find work or are disabled.


Because you cant cap a system without giving them the means to fend for themselves. Something you admitted isnt available in your country.

Shouldnt you be working on that?



Moonhead -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 1:47:02 PM)

We should, but it's a lot easier to have a permanent underclass providing a scapegoat for everything wrong in the kingdom, sadly.



tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 1:51:34 PM)

Seems that way. But he shouldnt blame the women for using a system that is available if nothing else is offered.



tj444 -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 1:56:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

We should, but it's a lot easier to have a permanent underclass providing a scapegoat for everything wrong in the kingdom, sadly.

And I find it interesting that so much attention is given to the women of these children and nothing about the men that are their fathers,.. it takes 2 to tango.. why are men apparently given a free pass & devoid of any responsibility? [8|]



Moonhead -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 2:00:10 PM)

Because they're not stuck raising the kid. Obviously.
(Myself, I've always quite like the idea of absentee fathers of more than one kid being given a vasectomy, if necessary under the threat of prison or having their benefits cut off, but apparently that's horrible nanny state and authoritarian.)



Lucylastic -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 2:01:28 PM)

oh now it gets even better, 3 kids, 40 weeks apart.
LMFAO
what did the father do, fuck her on the delivery table?, and there happened to be an egg, JUST WAITING to be fertilised?
so where is the fathers responsibility in all this dwarf?? you keep calling these women sluts, but when I lived in the uk, if you got pregnant and didnt name the father (so they could recoup the benefits thru court mandated child support), you got cut off....until you did.
in my humble opinion, your anecdotes are very very poor.
While I dont know what the rates are now, A single parent with one child saw a benefit raise of 15 quid a week(thats including baby bonus), that barely covered formula let alone diapers, or the ingredients cost of buying and laundering them.
A second child was even less than that.



tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare scrounging - about as low as it gets (12/13/2012 2:05:47 PM)

quote:

oh now it gets even better, 3 kids, 40 weeks apart.
LMFAO


umm.. try 6 kids in 4 years



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875