Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
portrayed as they're so universal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk

Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote

> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?

But the welfare systems arent. Here you are welcome
to bludge on the dole for your entire 'life' if you decide
that the lifestyle suits you. You can't do that in the USA.

In spades with HongKong before it was handed back to china.

> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
> portrayed as they're so universal.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk

On 06/04/2024 07:18 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
> portrayed as they're so universal.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk

:-)

On 06/04/2024 07:42 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote
>
>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?

> But the welfare systems arent. Here  you are welcome
> to bludge on the dole for your entire 'life' if you decide
> that the lifestyle suits you. You can't do that in the USA.

Are you sure?

The term "welfare witch" was coined there. Yes, we have the same people
in the UK and I'll bet they exist in Oz too.
>
> In spades with HongKong before it was handed back to china.
>
>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote

>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?

>> But the welfare systems arent. Here you are welcome
>> to bludge on the dole for your entire 'life' if you decide
>> that the lifestyle suits you. You can't do that in the USA.

> Are you sure?

Yep.

> The term "welfare witch" was coined there.

Just journo bullshit.

> Yes, we have the same people in theUK and I'll bet they exist in Oz too.

Yep, and I know some personally.

>> In spades with HongKong before it was handed back to china.

>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>> portrayed as they're so universal.

>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk

On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:18:31 +0100, Cursitor Doom wrote:

> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters portrayed
> as they're so universal.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk

National Service would sort them out.

On 4/7/2024 2:51 AM, Smolley wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:18:31 +0100, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters portrayed
>> as they're so universal.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>
>
> National Service would sort them out.
>

It's a Cheech and Chong movie.

The downtown of any city, isn't much different than that.

People aren't larger than life just in the welfare office.
They're larger than life out on the street.

In my old home town, downtown is busking. You could have people
juggling chainsaws, tennis balls, swallowing ignited brands,
playing instruments, dancing, doing acrobatics and so on.
There is usually a "one-man-band" with a drum and other
instruments, several of which can be played simultaneously.

It's organized, in the sense that they can't do that in
front of the posh restaurant or the high-street mall, but there
are plenty of places that they won't interfere with business, they
can do their thing.

If you come to this city, at noon I can take you downtown
and watch whores in high heels walk up and down a sidewalk,
while they carry on conversations with one another in loud
voices. This must be a very tiring thing to do. I didn't
stay long enough to see if any johns showed up.

There are drug addicts, street people. I'm sure half our
police force is deployed down there, but they're not
being heavy handed. Only rough stuff is going to
attract attention. At night, they'd be cruising the bar
district for the inevitable fights.

I can show you the larger than life characters at
my doctors office. The people looking for pain killers.
Some of them will come back to the same doctors office
*every day*, even though the doctor tells them he
can't prescribe painkillers. A number of doctors
have lost their opioid script permissions, so they
really can't give out pain killers any more. The rules
are very strict, and as a doctor, take pity on one
person, you can lose half your scripting capability.

There used to be a heroin addict near my work more
than 20 years ago, and she shows up at the doctors office,
with her premature snow white hair, and she's still alive.
I couldn't believe it. Presumably looking for pain killers.
But she didn't have the staying power of the regulars
and buggered off. Like, that's not her part of town.

You can drive people like this underground, but
you can't change them. They'll always be like that.
These are not people who are "down on their luck",
they're in a deep deep hole and they're staying
there for life. Welfare is just part of the tapestry
of their existence. If you yanked away the welfare,
they'd just be whoring or whatever. Maybe giving
blood at the blood donor clinic for money.

It's gotten so bad, most of our cities have parks
with "tent cities" in them. As the rent is too high
now, for even a flea bag dive, and so now they
live in tents.

The Food Bank, doesn't have enough to go around.
The shelves were empty there, a while ago. That's
the level of demand. There were still donations.
Just not enough.

If you don't do "something", it just makes the
tent city bigger. I don't think the council enjoys
dealing with this shit every day. Having to send
city employees and a bulldozer, to get a court
order and knock down a tent city. But if you don't
knock the tent city down, then the next day in the
news it's "fire in tent city, three burned". The
tent people must have their sources of heat.

It's that and the endless fentanyl deaths.

So yes, there is a larger-than-life part of the
population. Yes, they look like that movie.

There are also more mental people than there used
to be. Why ? Couldn't guess. Get on any transit
bus, there's at least one. Some, with violent
dialogs, so you really don't know what happens next.
Some are harmless. It wasn't always like this.

But the tent city is the pressure gauge on the system,
and tells you how you're doin.

https://ottawacitizen.com/feature/tent-city-nation

Paul

On 7 Apr 2024 at 10:28:15 BST, "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> lamented:

> It's gotten so bad, most of our cities have parks
> with "tent cities" in them. As the rent is too high
> now, for even a flea bag dive, and so now they
> live in tents.

"Defunding the police" doesn't help, and we know who to blame for that.
Fortunately, here, there is no option to do that.

--
Tim

On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 06:51:17 +0000, Smolley wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:18:31 +0100, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters portrayed
>> as they're so universal.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>
>
> National Service would sort them out.

If you want a shit army.

On 07/04/2024 11:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 06:51:17 +0000, Smolley wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:18:31 +0100, Cursitor Doom wrote:

>>
>> National Service would sort them out.
>
> If you want a shit army.

Or just need cannon fodder.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
> portrayed as they're so universal.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk

A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be entitled
and choose to work or not?

The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many case
it costs a family more to work than get benefits.

On 07/04/2024 01:50 pm, Fredxx wrote:

> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>
> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be entitled
> and choose to work or not?

Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country. But
anyone who does so had better have a private income.

And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to work
and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without
paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not to work.

> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many case
> it costs a family more to work than get benefits.

The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact, always
been quite clear:

Look for work (and look convincing while doing it) and when a job is
offered, take it.

Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been voided.
Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement. It's a
quid pro quo.

No quid, no quo.

And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing new.

But you already know this.

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:58:31 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

>On 07/04/2024 01:50 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>
>> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be entitled
>> and choose to work or not?
>
>Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country. But
>anyone who does so had better have a private income.

"It's a free country" you say. Since when? It was close to being one
when I was growing up, but that's long gone, mate. Anyone can lose
their job or even their career just through one careless remark. That
*never* used to be the case back in the day.

>And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to work
>and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
>entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without
>paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not to work.
>
>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many case
>> it costs a family more to work than get benefits.

AISI, the tax burden is the real incentive killer here, not low pay.
But if you look at the state of the nation's finances, it ain't a
pretty sight. It's either continue to levy crippling taxes or default
on that *huge* pile of debt that's been built up over the decades.
Neither choice is pleasant, but *debt* could bring this country (and
many other Western countries) down at any time now. It's inevitable
with the course we're on that sooner or later the bond markets will
sell off and TSHTF.

>The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact, always
>been quite clear:
>
>Look for work (and look convincing while doing it) and when a job is
>offered, take it.
>
>Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been voided.
>Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement. It's a
>quid pro quo.
>
>No quid, no quo.
>
>And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing new.

Actually, that's not the case. During the 1970s and 80s, being on the
dole required no effort on the part of the claimant to seek work.
That's a far more recent development.

On 7 Apr 2024 at 17:35:43 BST, "Cursitor Doom" <cd@notformail.com> wrote:

> "It's a free country" you say. Since when? It was close to being one
> when I was growing up, but that's long gone, mate. Anyone can lose
> their job or even their career just through one careless remark. That
> *never* used to be the case back in the day.

A careless remark such as that trans women are still men, style of thing?

--
"... you must remember that if you're trying to propagate a creed of poverty, gentleness and tolerance, you need a very rich, powerful, authoritarian organisation to do it." - Vice-Pope Eric

On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 16:47:09 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

> On 7 Apr 2024 at 17:35:43 BST, "Cursitor Doom" <cd@notformail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "It's a free country" you say. Since when? It was close to being one
>> when I was growing up, but that's long gone, mate. Anyone can lose
>> their job or even their career just through one careless remark. That
>> *never* used to be the case back in the day.
>
> A careless remark such as that trans women are still men, style of
> thing?

But they are. Biology being what it is and all.

On 07/04/2024 15:58, JNugent wrote:
> On 07/04/2024 01:50 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>>
>> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be
>> entitled and choose to work or not?
>
> Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country. But
> anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>
> And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to work
> and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
> entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without
> paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not to
> work.
>
>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many case
>> it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
>
> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact, always
> been quite clear:
>
> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it) and when a job is
> offered, take it.
>
> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been voided.
> Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement. It's a
> quid pro quo.
>
> No quid, no quo.
>
> And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing new.
>
> But you already know this.

Of course.

Since women with young children are no required to work, guess what:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/25/long-term-sickness-forcing-more-women-out-of-work-than-men/

I know of one mother who doesn't work, sending her sick notes to the job
centre every month.

Where there's a will there will always be a way.

On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 22:50:36 +1000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>
> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be entitled
> and choose to work or not?
>
> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many case
> it costs a family more to work than get benefits.

Bullshit on the many.

On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

> On 07/04/2024 01:50 pm, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> On 06/04/2024 19:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>>> This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>>> layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>>> portrayed as they're so universal.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk
>> A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be
>> entitled and choose to work or not?

> Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...

> But anyone who does so had better have a private income.

It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private income.

> And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to work
> and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is
> entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without
> paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not to
> work.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...

>> The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many case
>> it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
>
> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact, always
> been quite clear:

> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)

The law says nothing like that last.

> and when a job is offered, take it.

> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been voided.

There is no deal involved.

> Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement.

Try that in english. Even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook yet.

> It's a quid pro quo.

Nope.

> No quid, no quo.

Nope.

> And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing new.

Nope.

> But you already know this.

On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:18:31 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>
>Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over?
>This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty
>layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters
>portrayed as they're so universal.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVrlXcgnaYk

Tax dodgers are far worse.
https://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud

The real benefit scroungers are the government.
https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/missing-out-%C2%A319-billion-benefits-support-goes-unclaimed-each-year

Anyway, as a foreigner why are you so worried about what happens in
the UK?

On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 04:06:30 +1000
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
> wrote:
..
>
> > But anyone who does so had better have a private income.
>
> It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private income.
>

In the UK, only if you have zero housing costs i.e. live with parents.

Unemployment benefit barely covers basic food, and lasts for a maximum
of six months, during which evidence of looking for work *is* required.

Maybe it's different where you are.

What happens, of course, is that people come down with 'depression',
and disability benefit is not limited to six months. It's still pretty
low, though. You need lots of children to make it useful, and an extra
wife or two helps. Yes, they *are* counted as dependants.

--
Joe

On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 04:06:30 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>

>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact, always
>> been quite clear:
>
>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)
>
>The law says nothing like that last.
>
The wording may be different, but claimants are required to produce
evidence of recent job applications/interviews/refusals.

On 07/04/2024 19:06, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:58:31 +1000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact, always
>> been quite clear:
>
>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)
>
> The law says nothing like that last.

The law is interpreted as meaning precisely that by jobcentre staff.

Perhaps it is different in Oz.

>> and when a job is  offered, take it.
>
>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been voided.
>
> There is no deal involved.

It is a contractual condition of claiming various types of Universal
Credit. It is a deal.

Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote

>>> But anyone who does so had better have a private income.

>> It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private income.

> In the UK, only if you have zero housing costs i.e. live with parents.

Bullshit.

> Unemployment benefit barely covers basic food,

Bullshit

> and lasts for a maximum of six months,

Bullshit.

> during which evidence of looking for work *is* required.

And trivial to provide.

> Maybe it's different where you are.

It is the UK too.

> What happens, of course, is that people come down with 'depression',
> and disability benefit is not limited to six months.

It isnt limited to 6 months in the UK.

> It's still pretty low, though. You need lots of children to make it
> useful,

Bullshit.

> and an extra wife or two helps. Yes,they *are* counted as dependants.

Bullshit if they are working.

Custos Custodum <me@privacy.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote

>>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployablehas, in fact, always
>>> been quite clear:

>>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)

>> The law says nothing like that last.

> The wording may be different, but claimants are required to produce
> evidence of recent job applications/interviews/refusals.

Just applications and no mention of looking convincing.

Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote

>>> The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployablehas, in fact, always
>>> been quite clear:

>>> Look for work (and look convincing while doing it)

>> The law says nothing like that last.

> The law is interpreted as meaning precisely that by jobcentre staff.

Bullshit on the look convincing.

> Perhaps it is different in Oz.

Nope

>>> and when a job is offered, take it.

>>> Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been voided.

>> There is no deal involved.

> It is a contractual condition of claimingvarious types of Universal
> Credit.

That isnt the dole, stupid.

> It is a deal.

Bullshit.