Übergeek 바둑이: If you'd make this your political program and propagate it as something priority to handle social problems, then you fail to see that social problems come with missing perspective. To get people to work, to make them indeed "function", all the families comunities etc you need to bust the wall street, that is priority road. You need to get the banks back in the role they are BEST thought for, not a elitary club of avoiders of folk fete. Go figure where abuse is coming from. Most in poverty are trapped in awful difficult lifesituations, and they can figure abuse, coins against BILLIONS.

Czuch:

>  if you are taking from the state, then the state has the right to test you for drug use and other "intrusions"

I entirely agree with you on this.  People who use drugs and receive social assistance often leave their kids starving on account of their addiction.  I think that drug testing should be mandatory in cases where a social worker suspects that somebody is using social assistance money to buy alcohol, cigarrettes or drugs.  I think that there should also be a mandatory ban of social assistance recepients from casinos and other forms of gambling.  I think casinos should be required by law to turn away people receiving social assistance.  In practice it might be difficult to implement such a law, but the problem is that people addicted to gambling will go and bet away their kids' welfare.

The issue of addiction and social assistance is complex.  I think that if the state imposes mandatory testing, then there should also be readily available addiction recovery programs.  If somebody who wants social assistance tests positive for drugs or gambling, then a mandatory drug or gambling recovery program should be a condition for recieving social assistance as well as strict monitoring of the person's expenses.

The whole objective of social assistance programs is to ensure that the children of low income families receive all the basic needs so as to avoid unnnecessary hardship on low income children.  If that is the case, then drug testing and mandatory recovery programs should be part of the social programs aimed at helping low income families.  People might argue that it is "intrusive" or "inconstitutional", but the welfare of children should take precendence.

Some of the arguments against these programs are also done on a "cost" basis.  People will argue that it is expensive to treat addicts.  However, it would seem to me that in the long run it would cost less to provide treatment rather than see all that tax money wasted away on drugs, plus the economic cost of dysfunctional families unable to work or contribute to society.

Übergeek 바둑이: Its simple really.... people dont mind helping the disadvantaged, but they dont want to be duped by them either.

One problem with the whole issue is that most liberals (USA) think it is some kind of civil rights violation to put safe guards in place to avoid corruption. You cant drug test etc blah blah blah.... well to me, if you are taking from the state, then the state has the right to test you for drug use and other "intrusions" that those of us who do not need or choose to use public assistance are afforded.

You have a job and a family, and cant afford an educational tool like a computer for your child, then sure, give them a voucher.... but no drug abuse, make sure the computer can only be used by them and not sold etc....

I think the main point here is, that you may lose some "privacy rights" that most people enjoy, if you take my money to pay for your life, is that too much to ask, really?

"....Labour backbencher Alan Simpson is pledging to go to court rather than return £500 which he has been accused of over-claiming in cleaning bills......"

I guess this guy ain't going to get re-elected.

Snoopy: I don't think so, I think 'kissing baby' politics is just too much of the job. I heard a story about the USSR, the boffins were asked to come up with an efficient economic system.... they did. Yet those in power would have lost power.

Übergeek 바둑이 says money can bring out the worst in people.. true, but power can also.

plus the small matter of "we have a new idea"... "it's election time, who do we want to fund us?" ... zzzzzzzzzzzzz

As to your layabouts.. ok .. but that is them, not everyone on benefits is a layabout and it would be wrong to paint all with the same brush. Same as I hear some say "All terrorists are Muslims", "Everyone in the Anglican faith believes exactly the same"....

.. it just ain't true.

Snoopy:

In reponse to this:

>  why should any decent hard working person have to pay for someone else child to
>  have the same has theyve had to work hard for.

We can make the same argument for a lot of things.  Why pay for somebody else's healthcare?  Why should my money pay for somebody else's education?  Why should my tax dollars be used to buy food for the poor?  They can get jobs and pay for everything themselves.

The thinking probably is that in our modern world a child without a computer is at a disadvantage because computers are supposed to be educational tools.  The logic behind this might be to give low income families an opportunity to get something that they could not afford otherwise.  In that way their children would not be at a disadvantage at school.

Let's say that instead of computers they had said:  "We will give people vouchers to buy books if they find jobs".  Would the reaction be the same?  Probably those who object to it would not object as much, and those who would receive the voucher would not have been so happy about it.

We know that computers are more than educational tools.  They are also toys, and weapons.  They can be abused, like everything else.

Will there be abuse under a program like this?  For sure, in the same way that there is abuse in anything to do with giving people money.

There are people here who get a divorce so a woman can claim income support for a single parent.  Then later the government finds out that the ex-husband has become the woman's "roomate"!

Money always brings out the worst in people.

(V): just has the labour government did nothing to fix the problems she created
which brings everything nicely back to AD's post which was
Frankly, it sounds like both our governments are a bunch nitwits when it comes to financial matters.

okay had my say now back to what im really here for to play games


PS I don't know where you see this happening very rarely, and 2) how do you know they didn't buy this stuff before losing a job? 3) how do you know if they are single?
thats easy to answer known most of them since birth known there parents before them etc etc
dont have to be brain of Britain to know they just a bunch of layabouts who abuse the system year in year out

Snoopy: *sigh* it's a matter of economics, something I studied at school.... the economic system her government used is in economics known as a 'boom and bust' system. It makes things look good and great for a while until the bubble bursts. Granted Labour had made some rubbish decisions, but her government did not fix the problems, just used a fresh coat of paint to cover up the cracks and holes.

Basically the same as has happened now with the current recession worldwide.

And realistically the unions had a lot to do with Labour's mess, as I said she sorted that out thankfully re the coal strikes. But as such uncontrolled lending (as did happen in her time) went BANG.

(V): here we go again blame it all on Maggie despite the fact that the labour government before her had the country on its knees

Snoopy: I don't know where you see this happening very rarely, and 2) how do you know they didn't buy this stuff before losing a job? 3) how do you know if they are single?

Do you stand outside the job centre asking them to do a survey?

I'll give one example of one guy I use to know... his cars never cost him more then £50 and were paid for by selling the old ones for scrap. But he wasn't single, he'd lost his business thanks to Maggie's boom and bust economic policy.. married and had 3 children. He had good clothes for going out, and old clothes for when he was doing bits around the home. despite being a high paid executive, last I saw he was working for Mcdonalds after not being able to find work at the time Maggie's economic policy went BUST.

But that is an old example.. if you want to find out more I suggest you do that survey.

And yes.. there are some who abuse the system.. but it's wrong to paint those who do not with the same brush.

(V): but thats was the whole idea of the dole system surely was to tie ppl over until they found another job
it was never meant to gave ppl luxury items like it does now

if the money is so low for single ppl how come you never or very rarely see these ppl without the latest designer gear pulling up to the signing on offices in there cars
all with there mobile phones

heres a case in point few years ago i had to go my local social security office to sort things out after my mother died
and a girl in there was bragging that she come in for a crisis loan and she said they couldnt refuse her has she had children despite the fact that on every finger where gold rings and she actually reported the guy behind the desk
when he quite natually pointed out why didnt she sell some of her gold if she was that hard up

its not actually the system i object to
its the abuse of the system thats carried out on such a massive scale
there will always be ppl in genuine need

Snoopy: 1) these days they are hard regarding getting work. 2) people have to prove they are looking for work or their money is cut.

3) how can you cut people money for going on a course to help them find work?

... and FOUR)... the money that someone gets on the "dole" is low... you even mentioned that point earlier "....where the take home pay is coppers more than what benifits pay out.."

so please explain how it's "...the life of Riley.." ... Years ago when a firm I worked for went bust the money on the dole was so rubbish that I got temp jobs till I could find the job I wanted as the money was so crap. I don't see how you can say it's a great life. It's not like they are Paris Hilton or the likes living on millions is it. Back when I did temp jobs, the difference (pre minimum wage) between working 60+ hours a week on less then £2.5 per hour to the dole was over £120.

The rates for a single person(I've just checked) is £64.30 per week.. out of that, a person is expected to buy food, pay bills, clothe themselves, pay any rent top up, etc, etc. The minimum wage for the same person guarantees for a 40 hour week an income after tax of about £150 (rough estimate).... so how is being on the dole easy living? After just paying out for food elec/gas that's say.. £30+ gone, especially in winter. Rent top up can be (depending on the council) £5-10. Normal expenses.. soap, toothpaste, washing clothes... that's another fiver gone .. easily. Clothes wear out, shoes wear out, etc..

So how is it the life of Riley?
How is this easy living?

(V): yeah ive heard about these so called schemes
they attend for allotted time
fill in a few forms do a CV knowning full well that at the end of the day they not going to find work and so its back to the life of Riley on the dole

if there money was cut everytime they attended one of these so called schemes they just might get the message
GET OF YOUR LAZY BUTT AND FIND WORK

Snoopy: That remark is an ignorant $ grotesque over generalization of the poor.

Snoopy: It is almost impossible for someone to live their entire working lives on the dole unless their is no work. Disabled people.. that's a different matter. But the schemes in place for someone on the dole to assure they are not doing nothing to get a job are such that it is very hard for someone to cheat the system. They have to prove these days that they are looking for work and take part in schemes to improve their chances of getting a job.

Why do you think Working Families Tax credit was introduced!!

(V): thats my point its good to give to those ppl who are in the low paid jobs
ive nothing against that one lil bit
but im talking about giving to those who live there whole working lives on the dole

and how are ppl on these benifits able to afford internet access anyway ?

Snoopy: You missed my point. THOSE ON LOW INCOMES cannot afford to buy computers, to blame it all on being jobless is inaccurate and a complete misrepresentation of the matter.

If John Smith who is doing the bins in the morning has only a small amount of spare income after paying all his families bills, his wife cannot work (or in another case it's a one parent family)... where are they supposed to find the money?

And quite frankly, in a case of 'vouchers' I'd have it that they have to pay it back weekly/monthly, etc.

(V) your missing my point again

they would be able to buy there children computers and whatever else if they went out and found work

and dont tell me there isnt the jobs available cause there is if they look hard enough
they prefer to drink there beers take there drugs and get everything handed to them on a plate
and why should any decent hard working person have to pay for someone else child to have the same has theyve had to work hard for

Snoopy: My only real likeable thing Maggie did, was to lower the power of the unions to a reasonable level. The inquiry is not about charges, but how the mess happened.

From what I gather.. Tony Blair did not want the USA to go it alone into the Iraq war.. and I gotta hand it to him.. He was a major part of the Northern Ireland troubles stopping and the disarming of the various militia's on either side of that stupid conflict.

(V): well Maggie will always be a hero in my eyes

and i loved hearing the mother of one of the many killed in the Iraq war ask whether Tony Blair is to be charged with war crimes

Tony Blair was nothing more than George Bush puppet

Snoopy: I know it sounds stupid, and the possibility of fraud is a concern of those who have interest in kids having computer access (teachers associations and the like) .. but kids these days do need access to the net for their homework. It's not about whether you've got a job or not, as those on low incomes have problems affording a computer.

They calculated on a basis of those that have a PC or not that about 1 billion pounds is the cost to families in this country per year in not having access (about £500 per household) through not being able to surf for better deals on the likes of insurance, etc.

e-skills UK, the employer-led Sector Skills Council for IT and Telecoms.. recon that investment in IT skills and tech, etc.. including school kids being computer literate could generate an extra £35 billion pounds for the UK economy over the next decade.

If not vouchers, then some scheme must be set up so kids have access after school close to home to the net in order to be able to do their homework to the standards expected today. As I assure you... the homework ain't like we use to get!!

Snoopy: I was referring to the expenses scandal, and that does go back to Maggie's gov, as it was then the rules were changed to make it easier for the MP's to con the system.

As to this recession.. yes, there is some blame as to this crises. The guzumping (sp) that went on back then pushed house prices through the roof, the attitude that destroyed much of our community spirit came from her era.
.... As to the spending... As much as it has cost us, the likes of banks who have screwed up ..eg RBS and them going under would have cost more in the long run, I know it was the RBS's bosses fault on buying a bank without a detailed accounts to be able to see if they were worth it, but it was all those reliant on that bank for their retirement funds that would have suffered.

.. As to the two wars... Yes I agree on Iraq, that's why I'm glad there is in progress a full inquiry, but as to Afghanistan... Although the Taliban were as much our creation (as in the west re Russia's occupation) the possible deaths that could occur from that country training terrorist cells, the related killings of their own people and the poppy farms that give rise to so much heroin production ... My main 'rag' is that the troops sent to Iraq could have gone to Afghanistan and that war could have been almost over by now.

Maggie may have sorted out some matters... but she created so many new ones, she only got elected the second time due to the Falklands war victory. In many respects, she's one of the most hated PM's of the 20th century.

Snoopy: ah but Snoopy...it is a well known fact that most unemployed bludgers DON'T want to work,...why should they, they are given everything...enough money for smokes, grog, internet, and a bit left over for food...why work. As long as the kids are in school they can drink themselves to death, take drugs and generally not want to improve their lives at all. Take their council flats/homes off them and MAKE them work...things would fast change

Bernice: to let every child in the country internet access by giving parents vouchers to buy computers

ive never heard anything more stupid its so open to abuse its a joke
they just get the vouchers buy the computer and sell it the same day

not to mention the fact that if they got off there lazy asses and when and got a job
they be able to buy there children these things

Snoopy: OOOOOOOOOH I cant wait for the reaction to that post LOL

(V): no no no
the mess isnt caused by Maggie

she didnt decide to spend us out of a recession
she didnt decide to send us into 2 wars that had nothing to do with us
she was the one who infact cleaned up the mess after THE LAST LABOUR GOVERNMENT

Isn't it rich that the ones that designed the system that got us into this mess are the same ones designing the system to getting us out!

Artful Dodger: I don't think that this is possible to happen. Look at Sarkozy's son, this 23 year old won't make it 60 years or so from now on within this pervert "designer class" (it's demonic). Not only from his own mental point of vue he won't be able to stand this lifestyle, there is also an other side .... people.

Snoopy: The mess goes back to the time of the Iron lady, it was under her Government that the rules of expenses were changed, but at the same time Labour did not speak up. Basically, they are all guilty. as they all felt we would not care or know. It's thank to a whistle blower that they've been caught red handed.

As to whether the Tories will do better.. .. .. I'm hearing to much baby kissing from them at the moment, which does not lead to me having confidence. Though that their leader is saying "pay back or else you won't be allowed to stand for election", which is more than Labour are saying.

Snoopy:  Sounds a lot like the US.

i love to see one of the government ministers challenged to take up a job where the take home pay is coppers more than what benifits pay out

i love to see one of them come to live on any of the hundreds of estates that are no go areas after dark because of fear of being murdered cause you didnt give the hooded gangs a ciggie when they demanded it

i love to see a top goverment minister have to walk thou the crack and heroin addicts just to get home

but it will never happen they live in there own lil worlds and dream there own lil dreams

Bernice: Isn't it rich that the ones that designed the system that got us into this mess are the same ones designing the system to getting us out!

Snoopy: This is exactly the case in the US it seems. It seems that in politics, you have two sides of a one sided coin. A bit of a contradiction I know. But that's politics: They tend to live in a world of contradiction. They live in a world of villainous demons - most of which tend to be mere shadows. Politicians like to make things up. And many people, it seems, are programmed to accept what they hear. Much like in the era of McCarthyism, most of the villains are simply made up by the politicians to keep their side in the advantage, as opposed to the other. A bit of a tug-of-war, politics style.

And of course, most politicians have no idea of peoples' real needs or what to do about problems except to make up some strange promises that in the end, will never work. And on it goes.

Snoopy: we have had "privatisation" as selling off is called over here....and what has happened....the products have gotten dearer. For instance, electricity, telephones and the like.

(V): in my mind the country is in a right mess brought on by nearly 10 years of a labour government

the country is in serious debt which every man woman and child will be paying for
for the next 30 years

we were taken into 2 wars that the vast majority of the UK ppl didnt want and we dont even equip our troops properly
for the last few years weve been led by a joker who wasnt even elected
we have elected members of the house of commons ripping us off left right and centre
we are on our knees and then the government comes up with this stupid idea to sell off things

but the sad thing is the conservatives will not do any better

Artful Dodger: my baddddd. I didn't think being more accurate was a problem.

It's like the lunchtime news re ITN.. the presenter kept saying "oooo the post office workers are going on strike in 48 hours" ... before and after a union rep clearly stated that IF there is a strike it won't happen till the 22nd of this month.

The Government are selling possibly 3 billion pounds of assets, the local councils are being allowed to sell off 13 billion pounds of assets, which the Government does not get a penny of, it is kept by the local councils for use in their localities.

You asked for an opinion.. you got it. based on more in depth info on what is happening.

If the Gov can sell off items that are not essential and can be privately run, or sell of businesses it's had to rescue.. then good for them. But they will have to find buyers and the price *cough* .. excuse the phrase better be right, or it'll just be another nail in their coffin.

Quite frankly our whole system is going through a right of passage... Something you guys over the pond still won't do... And it seems the private sector in the USA is doing it's best to keep you from changing the system as they like you squabbling over left, right, up, down and rotationally.

(V):  I didn't ask for any of that nonsense.  I simply asked what others thought of the idea.  I made no comment on either side of the issue.  I simply shared a link and asked what others thought.  Obviously I was asking what was thought of the idea of selling government assets to get out of debt.  That's the question. 

Frankly, it sounds like both our governments are a bunch nitwits when it comes to financial matters. 

Snoopy: With prices at the moment of houses and land still iffy, I don't see them being able to raise what is planned. Plus... who is going to buy it? The companies who've recently been slapped on the wrists for rigging contracts!!

Basically, I think it's to take the attention of the expenses news and that of what is being said about our army's supply problems.

Those I feel are most of the UK people's angers at the mo. That MP's are complaining that they are getting letters to repay money that at heart they knew was wrong to claim as the 'rules' as such were rigged.

... And those who don't repay... I don't see getting re-elected unless the alternatives are worse.

Viva La Revolution!!

(V): so much for our idiot prime minister trying to buy us out of recession

Bernice: When are you going to stop flaming on public boards?

Artful Dodger: It doesn't matter, the way the info was presented was incorrect. If you read the BBC it says....

"Gordon Brown has announced a £16bn sale of government assets in an effort to reduce the growing budget deficit.

The Dartford crossing, the cross-Channel rail link and the nationalised bookmaker the Tote will be among items going on sale over the next two years.

The prime minister outlined initial plans to raise £3bn, including selling some government real estate."

I also checked other news sources..
I'm sorry, I tried to be more accurate... I didn't realise that was a crime on this board.

From C4...
The prime minister has given details of an initial round of disposals that could raise £3bn. Much of the rest of the funds will be realised by encouraging local authorities to exchange assets for cash..........
.....But shadow chief treasury secretary, Philip Hammond, said Mr Brown was merely spewing out "headline figures" in a bid to save his own electoral skin.

"We think that selling down assets in order to pay off debt, when you are in the sort of state that we are in, is a sensible thing to look at," he told Sky News. "But this is about saving the prime minister. It is about trying to get some headline figures that he can feed into the election."

Lib Dem treasury spokesman Vince Cable said that, given the state of the public finances, asset sales made sense "at least in principle".

But he added: "Attempts to sell off large amounts of government land into a very depressed market such as we have now would be frankly barmy.

"These asset sales should be based on a financial calculation not a political one.""

Artful Dodger: I was pulled up rather rudely with all the filthy language thrown in as she pointed out it was 25 billion dollars and not pounds, but it was also said it was 16 billion pounds which was a LOT different to the 3billion(V) was talking about....

I stand corrected of course HAHAHAHAHA

Artful Dodger:

Bernice:  

Government’s £16bn sale of public assets causes cross-party anger

Brown announces £16 billion asset sell-off

Brown unveils £16bn assets sale

British PM Brown to announce assets sell-off

And notice my question  "So what do UKers think of this idea?"

Besides, I wasn't making a statement.  I was asking for opinions on the UKs strategy.  But all V offered was an ad hominem. 

Most stories that get covered by Fox don't get covered by the other cables or networks (exception is CNN that does a fair job...but only fair).  Since the majority of viewers watch Fox, then it follows that the complainers are in the minority.  And we all know that when you don't have an counter argument, just attack Fox with sarcasm and make unsubstantiated claims against them.  Or in this case, just make stuff up. 

And to be clear, two of the above sources were used by Fox news in their report.  One was the BBC. 

Bernice:  He musta missed that part. 

(V): thats funny they keep saying £25B, or do you know something else?


***The Times of London and BBC News contributed to this report***. - what does this mean at the end of the story then?

Plus Art, most of the assets being opened for sale are at the local council level, something Fox do not mention, only £3B is direct government sales. The councils will be allowed to use that money as they wish.

Better stop reading Fox for your news.. not reliable or accurate enough.

Artful Dodger: Yeah... who calls it "chunnel"?? No-one I know or heard say on the news.

well... It's fox what do you expect!!

Czuch: Nope, that case is still being investigated.

And if you don't read anything with "V" at the begining, then you'll skip all the poor replies to my posts, as well as some excellent ones by non-republicans who've done some research rather than knee jerk reactions and c&pasting far right rhetoric

Pedro Martínez:

Pedro Martínez: