The state benefits system mega-thread.

[Gary L]

You sound like you're preaching again, Chris

Why should anyone have to be jealous of someone's wealth in this 'argument' I don't know.
who started that one?

You did, by making IDS's wealth and privilege a topic of discussion instead of the benefit changes.

IDS's house, his car and his wife make no difference at all to the government's benefits policy. The policy is either right or wrong on its own terms.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

You did, by making IDS's wealth and privilege a topic of discussion instead of the benefit changes.

That was in reply to someone saying that he worked hard for his money.
I merely asked if it's true that he married into wealth. which contradicts the working hard for the wealth.

IDS's house, his car and his wife make no difference at all to the government's benefits policy. The policy is either right or wrong on its own terms.

I know. but in order to discount the opposition. the term 'jealousy' is being used.

That's because some posters are making an issue out of other people being rich and privileged, instead of discussing whether the benefits reforms are correct in the context of the economic situation and the stated policy aim of making it more worthwhile for those that can work, to work. Arthur and Mertle are good examples of two posters who have made an issue out of the rich, although IMO Mertle does it rather more intelligently. He makes an argument for a socialist approach to wealth redistribution, which is well made even though I believe his premise is fundamentally flawed.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by peanut

A better idea would be to start your own thread and keep all your rants about Arthur in that one place.

Err NO

Originally Posted by Chris

Personal experience may offer insight, however lack of personal experience does not disqualify someone from coming to a considered point of view. If you were less minded to think people who don't share your experiences have less to contribute then you might be less prone to assuming that's what other people are doing to you.

Please do not consider you know what goes on in my head and speak for that its very rude.

Seriously mate we discuss these issues as I said before I have courage of conviction and stand by and fight for my point of view. It is no different to what you marty or any other members do. Why do you feel the need to single me out and make out like its only me that stubborn? most of us in these threads are just a stubborn so I would appreciate it if you and others were to stop singling me out acting likes its only me ok??

---------- Post added at 18:45 ---------- Previous post was at 18:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

That's because some posters are making an issue out of other people being rich and privileged, instead of discussing whether the benefits reforms are correct in the context of the economic situation and the stated policy aim of making it more worthwhile for those that can work, to work. Arthur and Mertle are good examples of two posters who have made an issue out of the rich, although IMO Mertle does it rather more intelligently. He makes an argument for a socialist approach to wealth redistribution, which is well made even though I believe his premise is fundamentally flawed.

see singling Arthur out here saying his post lacks intelligence this is very rude and a lot of members do the same and I get singled out for standing my ground while Arthur is ripped to shreds on a regular basis crazy I am not the only one with a bad attitude here

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

Please do not consider you know what goes on in my head and speak for that its very rude.

Seriously mate we discuss these issues as I said before I have courage of conviction and stand by and fight for my point of view. It is no different to what you marty or any other members do. Why do you feel the need to single me out and make out like its only me that stubborn? most of us in these threads are just a stubborn so I would appreciate it if you and others were to stop singling me out acting likes its only me ok??

Who's singling you out? I happen to be responding directly to you at this point, I've responded to directly to others at other points. And I will continue to do so. I have a conviction to stand by, just as you do.

I consider I know what goes on in your head only to the extent that you share your thoughts in this thread, and others like it. I have seen you arguing that people who don't share your experience can't speak to it as well as you can. I have seen you observing that you think others are trying to discredit or attack you when all I can see is people addressing social situations that you happen to personally identify with.

A national welfare policy is a blunt instrument. We can only discuss the rights and the wrongs of it in blunt fashion. There will always be personal stories of hardship and a sense of injustice in this area. A policy designed to address the needs of millions is always going to have anomalies that disadvantage some. However I do not see anywhere in this thread, any discussion about the technicalities and what might need to be done in order to address injustices and anomalies. The thread so far has been very high level, discussing the overall right or wrong of the benefit reforms. As such, I can see no justification at all for you feeling like your position is being personally attacked. I might just as well be accused of attacking myself, seeing as I am currently and by some distance a net beneficiary of the system rather than a net contributor - a fact you have previously dismissed as less relevant than your own experience as I'm not actually on the 'bread line'. But there we go round in circles again.

[Gary L]

Just seen a piece on the news where Osbourne goes to of all places 'where people are working' to discuss what's happening to those who are not working?

they mention that they'll be £300 a year better off.
I assume that £300 is a fortune?

so what is around £900 a year loss then? that some of the non workers are losing??!!

it's a triple fortune!

madness.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

see singling Arthur out here saying his post lacks intelligence this is very rude and a lot of members do the same and I get singled out for standing my ground while Arthur is ripped to shreds on a regular basis crazy I am not the only one with a bad attitude here

Try reading it again without the red misty goggles.

Saying that one person's comments are offered more intelligently is not the same thing as saying the other person's comments lack intelligence. Not the same thing at all. One is a relative statement and the other is an absolute.

---------- Post added at 18:58 ---------- Previous post was at 18:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

Just seen a piece on the news where Osbourne goes to of all places 'where people are working' to discuss what's happening to those who are not working?

they mention that they'll be £300 a year better off.
I assume that £300 is a fortune?

so what is around £900 a year loss then? that some of the non workers are losing??!!

madness.

No, it's not madness, but the fact that you can't see the point he was making is very telling.

The benefit reforms are supposed to make it more worthwhile to work than not to work. They are also meant to address the injustice felt by many low-paid, hard-working people that they have friends and neighbours who are better off on benefits and not working at all.

Taking the government's message about welfare reform and sharing it in front of an audience of workers who will be happy to hear it is simply good politics.

Originally Posted by Chris

Who's singling you out? I happen to be responding directly to you at this point, I've responded to directly to others at other points. And I will continue to do so. I have a conviction to stand by, just as you do.

I consider I know what goes on in your head only to the extent that you share your thoughts in this thread, and others like it. I have seen you arguing that people who don't share your experience can't speak to it as well as you can. I have seen you observing that you think others are trying to discredit or attack you when all I can see is people addressing social situations that you happen to personally identify with.

A national welfare policy is a blunt instrument. We can only discuss the rights and the wrongs of it in blunt fashion. There will always be personal stories of hardship and a sense of injustice in this area. A policy designed to address the needs of millions is always going to have anomalies that disadvantage some. However I do not see anywhere in this thread, any discussion about the technicalities and what might need to be done in order to address injustices and anomalies. The thread so far has been very high level, discussing the overall right or wrong of the benefit reforms. As such, I can see no justification at all for you feeling like your position is being personally attacked. I might just as well be accused of attacking myself, seeing as I am currently and by some distance a net beneficiary of the system rather than a net contributor - a fact you have previously dismissed as less relevant than your own experience as I'm not actually on the 'bread line'. But there we go round in circles again.

but its how you try to score points by belittling my point of view Chris you do it all the time. You do not respond just to my point you then go onto to say things about how I am thinking or my motives when seriously you do not have a clue about me

Chris it appears to me that you are only interested in your own opinion and no one elses matters === things like this you recognise eh?
You seem to think you past knowledge on a subject that has changed is as relevant as upto date experience === see I can do it to if you want to play that game

You and marty argue the same point only yours seems a little more intelligent ===== hows about that one then...

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

No, it's not madness

If I say it's madness, then it's madness.
you're just of the opinion that it's not

The benefit reforms are supposed to make it more worthwhile to work than not to work. They are also meant to address the injustice felt by many low-paid, hard-working people that they have friends and neighbours who are better off on benefits and not working at all.

So why didn't he go and do his PR stunt in a jobcentre?
tell them that there's jobs out there. forget that not so long ago there wasn't, because now there's jobs galore for everyone.

Taking the government's message about welfare reform and sharing it in front of an audience of workers who will be happy to hear it is simply good politics.

I agree. it makes the divide even stronger.

we're going to be sorry.

Originally Posted by Chris

Try reading it again without the red misty goggles.

Saying that one person's comments are offered more intelligently is not the same thing as saying the other person's comments lack intelligence. Not the same thing at all. One is a relative statement and the other is an absolute.

---------- Post added at 18:58 ---------- Previous post was at 18:55 ----------



No, it's not madness, but the fact that you can't see the point he was making is very telling.

The benefit reforms are supposed to make it more worthwhile to work than not to work. They are also meant to address the injustice felt by many low-paid, hard-working people that they have friends and neighbours who are better off on benefits and not working at all.

Taking the government's message about welfare reform and sharing it in front of an audience of workers who will be happy to hear it is simply good politics.

no red here mate as I explained yesterday none of this winds me up its just a game mate and I love it. Not been missed though that you try to discredit me making out I am angry again how could you possibly know????

Originally Posted by Gary L

So why didn't he go and do his PR stunt in a jobcentre?
tell them that there's jobs out there. forget that not so long ago there wasn't, because now there's jobs galore for everyone.

Because it's a tough message to be told you're getting less money so delivering it in a job centre would not result in good pictures for the news. Osborne has chosen a sympathetic audience, and why shouldn't he? Speeches, walkabouts and hand-shaking are political events.

Originally Posted by Gary L

I agree. it makes the divide even stronger.

we're going to be sorry.

No, we really aren't. The benefit reforms are polling extremely well for the Tories.

---------- Post added at 19:10 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

no red here mate as I explained yesterday none of this winds me up its just a game mate and I love it. Not been missed though that you try to discredit me making out I am angry again how could you possibly know????

I observe that you seem angry. You say you're not. It's just another aspect of the discussion.

Originally Posted by Chris

Because it's a tough message to be told you're getting less money so delivering it in a job centre would not result in good pictures for the news. Osborne has chosen a sympathetic audience, and why shouldn't he? Speeches, walkabouts and hand-shaking are political events.

---------- Post added at 19:10 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------



I observe that you seem angry. You say you're not. It's just another aspect of the discussion.

propaganda and spin I for one will not fall for it

all you can see is my type your observation is flawed not an aspect of the discussion at all but its your prejudice towards me just standing by my beliefs just like you

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

its your prejudice towards me just standing by my beliefs just like you

... which would be a comment on what you believe my motives are, rather than a contribution to the thread.

Which, as it happens, I think is a relevant consideration, which is why I don't think twice about observing other posters' apparent motivations and moods when I post.

I think envy and hatred have played a major part in some people's contributions to this discussion. IDS has been pilloried not for making a supposedly incoherent argument on welfare but for being rich.