&host=www.rt.com&uri=/news/uk-unemployment-benefits-lazing/comments/&via=1.1 198.78.206.21:80 (Footprint 4.8/FPMCP)&ua=Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html))
Better off on benefits: state blamed for UK’s lazy unemployment cycle
Published: 13 October, 2010, 11:27
Edited: 14 October, 2010, 11:01
Nearly one in eight British households has no breadwinner. The new figures, from the Centre for Policy Studies, rank the UK top of the household jobless table, compared to other major EU countries.
It's complicated, JG. They want you to have children, even if you are unfit, because it latches you into the system and creates a possibility and a replacement. I'm poor, but I'm free. I don't have anything keeping me in the state. The people who succeed are usually just lucky and the rest of us rise and fall at various times. Eventually, something will come along, but it's not "fair" if we don't all have kids. Unfortunately, I'm a primate and have been stressed past the dream to where I'll kill any female I get and abandon any child taht isn't perfect because they have taken my control and trapped me with no future. In most states, children are like the lotto.
You miss a key factor, which is that there is now a two wage earner economy in the west, which means that a single mother is far more disadvantaged competitively than when the one wage earner family existed. The two wage earner family has feminized poverty. In a single wage earner economy a single working mom competed with the male and made 2/3 of what he did; now she competes with both the male and the female and makes less than 1/2 what the family she has to compete with for housing, child care fees, etc.. Quite obviously, mortgages are almost entirely based on the two wage earner family income now, so single working moms cannot possibly get a mortgage yet they have to pay rents that are based on two incomes! This is really quite impossible and causes many women to go on welfare where at least they can be with their children. Frankly, the only reason I worked was to give my child a good example and hope. However, if I had had two children when my husband left, I'd never have been able to afford the child care. I lived so frugally, you would not believe it, and my babysitter was kind enough often to give me food! Still I went into great debt for the absolute necessities and was not able to get out of debt until my child got a job and stopped asking me for money! It is really an impossible situation. Yet the left will not even speak of it, apparently for fear of offending rich women concerned with the glass ceiling. However, this is the real situation, and it is also the source of much of the anger that the right wing addresses subtextually. The divorce rate of 50% so every family has experience directly or indirectly with the economic devasation that accompanies single motherhood.
The political climate is stale and recessive - the majority of cabinet positions are dominated by 'the elite' millionaires whom were fortunate enough to have a rich daddy. Their is no working-class representation within the political establishment; such a disproportionate social makeup is not allowed and prevented through positive discriminate for gender, ethnic background, sexuality, but does not ensure each social group is fairly represented.
On the subject of welfare: This country is bust. The socialists (Labour), whom should be nothing more than a fringe party, have thrown money, rather than ideas at every problem area - pensions, welfare, education, healthcare...nothing improved and the private sector deteriated.
The abhorant nature of the socialist allowed for populist policies which allowed for re-election - knowing that their bill would be taken up, not by the incumbent, but their successor - the Conservative Party.
Welfare is wrong. There should be a safety-net formed by the charitable sector, but nothing more than a safety-net. Unfortunately, the welfare package is the equivolent of a £250 per week job (JSA, housing benefit, free dental, free prescriptions, free opticians, free childcare, free school dinners....) without having to do anything for the money. This has made families better off and more stable than if they had gone out to work.
Do not blame the people for their idleness - blame government intervention - they have steared Britain into a quagmire, which is soon to become a cesspit. I would just wish government would get out of the way and allow people to take responsibility for their own lives. Although it's rhetoric, Cameron is right when he says it is unfair on the people on benefits. This is true, they are locked into the system, regardless of their will to change.
I agree with the breeding thing: the underclass are breeding like rabbits, while the middle-class are finding it difficult to pay the bills, thus family-planning is pressurised. Our population would probably be recessing if we didn't have such a high rate of immigration and underclass-welfare-driven-breeding. This underclass breeding has allowed for an environment of social squalor.
The ticking time bomb is about the explode.
Conservatives will get the blame, but in reality, the socialists perpetuated the problem.
For those on benefits, each child brings more chi9ld allowance and the possibility of a larger house. The worst of this situation is that the people having the most children are those entirely on benefits, while those in work have to pay more tax to pay for them and cannot afford to have children of their own. The country is breeding more layabouts every year.