Originally Posted by punky

Of course I can, and there might come a time when I will have to. But if theres all this free money going, then surely there would be no need - unless there isn't of course.




Not all social security receiptients are scroungers (your words). I am not going to go into another argument about this, but i'll try and glance over it and hopefully clarify my position. Some people genuinely deserve help, which is why social security is there. We pay tax to help keep the fabric of society together. Police, army, hospital - and to help protect people if they deserve it. I do support support social security which is one issue I wear my leftie hat (I always say with my political opinion, I am a centrist and straddle both sides.. which is why I seem to end up arguing with both). I do support helping the vunerable, but when I am paying for it, even only in a small part, then I want that system to be run as efficiently as possible, helping as many people as possible, for the least cost. It needs to be redesigned not scrapped.

I am a free marketeer as you say, and I do oppose an all-emcompassing nanny state constantly meddling in the affairs of its citizens. Sometimes it is needed, in this case? I am not convinced.... And I am certainly apprehensive about the government happily prancing off all these new election-winning ideas to help people, when someone else has to pick up the cost. Its spending other people's money, and like I said, if you are trying to keep people in gainful employment (without doing a Labour and reducing unemployment by filling nonsense public sector jobs), then it is counter-productive to keep squeezing companies who are supposed to be employing people. This isn't the first and only idea to benefit people that screws over the companies either.

I don't think I can clarify my position any better, but if you still can't appreciate where I am coming from, then i'll have to step out, and let the usual banter continue around me.