QuoteJust wondered, why the FF exemption? Or like me do you see no difference between them...Originally Posted by patsh
Couldn't agree more with you.For a start they could introduce taxes on zoned development land not developed. Increase the supply of houses to rent or buy, lowering the cost and then social welfare payments for rent allowance, affordable housing, social housing would all come down. Myers/FF/PD would probably think that was interferring with the free market though.
They could also start by having more state provided and state subsidised child care. Then these mothers of bástards (not to mention the 1000's of mothers/fathers effectively working for nothing), could go back to work, "contribute to society", pay their taxes, have increased self worth etc. Again that'd be Government interference, and we couldn't be doing that. Myers would probably be happy as he could have a rant away about the breakdown in society with mothers working rather than staying at home and raising their kids.
There are things that could actually be DONE, but expecting a PD to DO something, rather than have 20 press conferences to TALK about it, would be something far too much to expect.
And of course, it's so much easier to RANT than to ACT.
Just wondered, why the FF exemption? Or like me do you see no difference between them...
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
That you can't open your mouth anymore on any subject without certain people mounting the high horse and while Myers overdid it a bit, his main point is being lost in the furore.
Who are ya tellin ? Gavin Dykes ?
I don't see it like that, my take is that he is differentiating between 'regular' people like us all that have to go out and work for a living versus these spongers.
The guy did say he knew these people and they openly admit to these benefits and the fact that he has to go out and burst his balls just to exist really galls him. And I don't blame him.
I've been on the dole myself and don't begrudge anyone social welfare but there are some people flaaing the situation.
"Must you tell me all your secrets when it's hard enough to love you knowing nothing."
http://worddok.blogspot.com
They are the government. As Von Dowell and Harney can say what they like, whenever they like and not a peep from FF, I think it is fair to deduce that a coup has taken place and FF are now the tail to the PD mongrel....
Mary Ellen Synon came out of the mist to support Myers on Joe Duffy on Wednesday. What a bovine! The last we heard of her she was receiving deposits at the Bank of England, on the office floor, from the deputy governor, Rupert Pennant-Rea.
Injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere - Martin Luther King Jnr.
"PC" is a convenient label, mostly, right-wing reactionaries use to dismiss valid criticism. They are either to lazy or unable to come up with compelling counter arguments, so they lash out some meaningless coverall term that does the job for them.
So were you "irregular" when you were on the dole, and pined to be regular?
Did you stop becoming a sponger when you got a job?
I have to "burst my balls" just to exist, but it's not becuase some "young wan" can't understand the concept of a condom or birth-control. It is because of the economic policy of the country I live in, where the cost of living has bloomed to ludicrous proportions.
That's no one's fault by Myers. He writes in a deliberately inflammatory manner, and then the right jump to his defence and say that the point is being lost. Who's fault is it exactly?
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
I don't begrudge anyone their entitlements, the use of the word regular was not mine, just tryin to explain to you what I thought the guy means in what he says. Use it as you will.
There are girls out there that get caught but to get caught twice or 3 times? Come on. You don't credit them with very much.
Agree totally on the cost of living but are these people helping the situation?
"Must you tell me all your secrets when it's hard enough to love you knowing nothing."
http://worddok.blogspot.com
I thought he made some good points in the original artical.
A lot of single mothers are just milking the state. A lot of these mother's partners are out earning a good living but they can still claim a nice allowence of the state.
Whatever happened to waiting to marry to have children.
AFAIK in the states, girls were supported for the first child, and got nothing for the second .... and it nearly cleared the whole problem up.
It doesn't really matter what was said in whatever column .... people, from what i have seen are feeling the pinch whenever they try and do anything in this country nowadays, so there is very little pity to go around for girls who are getting "caught" to get onto a five year waiting list for a house and all the goes with. And it is not just single mothers, it is couples purposely not putting the fathers name on the birth cert so they can both abuse the system later on, that IMO is totally pushing the boat out. The fathers then move into said house when he is not meant to be there. When caught ... they should lose everything.
The short of it .... there is a problem .... and it is up to the government of the day to sort it out. If they dont ... they haven't done their job.
The SFAI are the governing body for grassroots football in Ireland, not the FAI. Its success or the lack of is all down to them.
One thing I really take issue with is people talking about "unmarried mothers" when what they mean is single mothers. People don't have to be married to be in a happy secure relationship, and the archaic terms used by Myers are just proof of deeper prejudices held in this country
Not having a go at any poster, but it's interesting to see that the topic is concerned with "women" only. I've heard very little discussion of the role of men in all this. I suspect that very few of the mothers are getting articial insemination, so the vast majority of pregnancies have a male involved for some period of time, (no matter how short), and at least 50% of any pregnancy must attach to the father. Men CAN insist of wearing condoms, they CAN take responsibility for where they put their dicks!....
Women who get "caught" two or three times get a bad name, but if you want to screw someone whether or not they have had a child, it's very simple to make sure you don't get her pregnant no matter what way she feels.
I think the issues raised here are not of responsiblility for the pregnancy, but the fact that some pregnancies are by and large used in order to improve the quality of life of the mother, who screws the welfare system into paying for cars and holidays. Take the first Tuesday of the month, and look at the amount of people that are out on the razz compared to normal Tuesdays.Perhaps these benefits should be paid out in nappies, baby food, school uniforms, books and the like, instead of giving neglectful parents the means to go out and get hammered, possibly leading to more unwanted pregnancies.Not having a go at any poster, but it's interesting to see that the topic is concerned with "women" only. I've heard very little discussion of the role of men in all this. I suspect that very few of the mothers are getting articial insemination, so the vast majority of pregnancies have a male involved for some period of time, (no matter how short
Women who get "caught" two or three times get a bad name, but if you want to screw someone whether or not they have had a child, it's very simple to make sure you don't get her pregnant no matter what way she feels.
Are you Kevin Myers cousin?
On what basis are you making that outrageous claim?
Do you have facts and figures to prove it, or are you just making more wild accusations?
Show me ONE instance anywhere in this country where Social Welfare paid for a car or a holiday for ANYONE?
That claim is based on nothing but ignorance and predujice.....
Are you Kevin Myers cousin?No....
On what basis are you making that outrageous claim?I personally know someone living in Rathfarnham who has 3 kids by different fathers, and uses every penny of her childrens allowance to make repayments to the credit union for loans for holidays to Spain twice a year.
Do you have facts and figures to prove it, or are you just making more wild accusations?See above...this is not a wild accusation, its a sad fact.
Show me ONE instance anywhere in this country where Social Welfare paid for a car or a holiday for ANYONE?I think I just have.
That claim is based on nothing but ignorance and predujice.....
I don't agree with Kevin Myers use of the English language towards the children, but it would be a prejudiced ignoramus who believes there aren't people out there who bleed the system in this way.
Last edited by joeSoap; 14/02/2005 at 9:48 AM.
Joe Soap, that isn't the state paying for her credit union loans, it's her spending he money how she chooses. Very different for the state paying for holidays and cars. Does she take the kids on holidays, or transport them in the car?
Actually I know plenty of married, working couples for whom the childrens allowance allows them to run cars and go on holidays. Childrens allowance isn't an allowance specific to single parents....
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Agreed...to a point. She doesn't take the kids on holiday, so therefore the money she gets from the state to rear her kids is being used for her own gratrification. Wrongful use of welfare imo.
I agree that childrens allowance isn't specific to single parents, but it is an allowance for children....for basics and essentials...not so mammy can swan off the Spain twice a year.
We'll have to agree to differ on the Childrens Allowance thing, as personally I don't even think that that was what Myers was getting at. From my point of view, being a believer in Credit Unions, I'm actually pleased it's paying off a credit union loan rather than a loan shark...
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Yes, but you're moving away from the core of the point I'm making. I believe that the use of State money, given to improve your childrens health, upbringing, education etc, should be used for that, and that alone. Not to develop your own tan, or buy yourself the latest fashions.
But you're bringing in a benefit that isn't specific to single mothers. Like I said, I know people who are married and both working that use Childrens allowance in that way. It's up to the parents how they chose to spend it, married or unmarried, single or in a relationship. To me it is very different to the alleged single mother creaming it off the state.
Ultimately the problem is due to Government inaction on things like childcare that would make it beneficial for people to work. Too much focus on the stick, rather than carrot.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks