- Joined
- Mar 5, 2002
- Messages
- 20,281
- Reaction score
- 1,794
Nivrip, you'll make yourself so angry you will make yourself ill.
It's happening and there's very little you or I can do about, as disagreeable as things are.
And to repeat - no, I couldn't care less about people claiming benefits. It's all small change in the greater scheme of things, if anger needs venting it needs venting to whoever's driving this nation of ours, wasting billions every single day.
That's what's wrong, not a bunch of people claiming benefits, some scrounging, undoubtedly, some not.
Now then, what would happen if the State stopped paying benefits or lowered them? Shrug off the tunnel vision and think about it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out there'd be more crime.
More crime would result in a lot of crime victims, a need for more police officers, more magistrates and more magistrates courts and all the attendant admin that goes with those courts and lots more prison space and prison staff.
Which I dare say would cost more than the total benefits bill.
And we'd all likely be living in a bigger climate of fear than we are now.
And you'd see a sharp increase in people selling the Big Issue.
And there'd be more sick people, putting a strain on the already over-burdened NHS.
So, I look on benefits as a kind of safety valve, the Goverment probably realises that it's cheaper to pay benefits than all the other business.
And those really in charge know what they're doing. By keeping the public's anger focused on benefit 'scroungers' they happily divert the average person's attention away from the bigger issues.
As for benefits being originally designed as a temporary safety net - times change, I'm sure if the Goverment could get away with saving some money they would, but they probably realise what a pressure cooker they're sitting on and consider the cost to keep it capped relatively small.
As always, step back and see the bigger picture. Unless, of course, it gives a person pleasure to get angry and vent, in which case go ahead, but that's not my thing, I will not join the herd.
It's happening and there's very little you or I can do about, as disagreeable as things are.
And to repeat - no, I couldn't care less about people claiming benefits. It's all small change in the greater scheme of things, if anger needs venting it needs venting to whoever's driving this nation of ours, wasting billions every single day.
That's what's wrong, not a bunch of people claiming benefits, some scrounging, undoubtedly, some not.
Now then, what would happen if the State stopped paying benefits or lowered them? Shrug off the tunnel vision and think about it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out there'd be more crime.
More crime would result in a lot of crime victims, a need for more police officers, more magistrates and more magistrates courts and all the attendant admin that goes with those courts and lots more prison space and prison staff.
Which I dare say would cost more than the total benefits bill.
And we'd all likely be living in a bigger climate of fear than we are now.
And you'd see a sharp increase in people selling the Big Issue.
And there'd be more sick people, putting a strain on the already over-burdened NHS.
So, I look on benefits as a kind of safety valve, the Goverment probably realises that it's cheaper to pay benefits than all the other business.
And those really in charge know what they're doing. By keeping the public's anger focused on benefit 'scroungers' they happily divert the average person's attention away from the bigger issues.
As for benefits being originally designed as a temporary safety net - times change, I'm sure if the Goverment could get away with saving some money they would, but they probably realise what a pressure cooker they're sitting on and consider the cost to keep it capped relatively small.
As always, step back and see the bigger picture. Unless, of course, it gives a person pleasure to get angry and vent, in which case go ahead, but that's not my thing, I will not join the herd.
