David Cameron: 'Don’t complain about welfare cuts, go and find work'
217 replies, posted
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/rgJ8h.jpg[/IMG]
[release]David Cameron said that living on welfare had become an “acceptable alternative” to working and suggested that benefit payments were too easy to receive.
He spoke as the Government faced serious opposition to the plan to cap the maximum benefit payments that can be received by any household at £26,000. The House of Lords is seeking to block the policy.
The cap has been set at the same level as the average family’s earnings and ministers insist that it is unfair that taxpayers must subsidise those receiving more from the state than typical employees earn.
The Government was defeated in the House of Lords after bishops tabled an amendment to the Welfare Bill proposing that child benefit is excluded from the cap.
The amendment, which was backed by dozens of Liberal Democrat peers, threatens to wreck the entire concept of the cap.
Senior Conservatives have said they are determined to force through the legislation by overturning the Lords amendment, a move which is said to have widespread public backing.
Speaking before the Lords debate, the Prime Minister sought to echo Norman Tebbit, the former Conservative minister, who told unemployed people to “get on your bike” in 1981.
Asked about the impact of the £26,000 benefits cap, Mr Cameron said: “In many cases the answer will be for someone in that family to go out and work, and that will be the right answer for that family.
[B]“We have too many children growing up in our country in households where nobody works, where a life on welfare has become an acceptable alternative”.[/B]
Opponents have claimed that the cap will push more children into poverty but the Prime Minister insisted that the greatest suffering was endured by children growing up in workless households.
[B]“The way children suffer today, there are far too many children in households where no one is working,” he said. “And one of the reasons why in some households no one is working is because welfare has become so available.”[/B]
Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, also suggested that the current benefit “incentivised” some parents to have more children in order to remain in large, expensive homes paid for by welfare which they could not afford by working.
“This is utterly wrong and it’s a benefit system that desperately needs change,” he said.
Figures released earlier this month showed that there are currently at least 190 families with 10 or more children who are dependent on benefits. Each family can claim more than £60,000.
The Government’s setback in the Lords came as a new poll suggested that Mr Cameron’s popularity is at a post-election high.
An ICM poll for The Guardian showed support for the Conservative sitting at 40 per cent, with 35 per cent for Labour and 16 per cent for the Lib Dems.
Another poll suggested that Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, was failing to appeal to male voters.
A government spokesman said the Lords vote "flies in the face of public opinion".
He said: "We are determined our reforms will be implemented in full and we will take this back to the House of Commons to reverse tonight's decision."[/release]
[URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9034237/David-Cameron-Dont-complain-about-welfare-cuts-go-and-find-work.html"]Video[/URL]
I don't understand how people can criticise David so much, he's entirely correct with everything he said. People need to get jobs.
Have David, may I ask of you to hire me for a job?
No? Oh..
Thing is, I've applied to many places for mediocre jobs. I've been turned down, I dressed nice, well kept of myself. The only job I was able to get? A job with my step-dad for part time construction. It pays nice, but isn't very fluid. If you know what I mean.
As for the welfare thing, I do agree. Even here in Canada, I go down town in my city, and there are a bunch of druggies, alcoholics that LIVE off of a welfare check to get it. Now I know not all of them are like that, but when the paycheck that gets handed over to them, from people that actually work and have a family to maintain themselves?
It's sickening.
£26k is enough to live on. Being any higher is unnecessary.
[editline].[/editline]
If you want the finest steak a few times a month, then get a job. Otherwise, don't have it and eat cheap shit. Not enjoyable, but you didn't earn the enjoyment, did you?
So out of touch.
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;34376994]I don't understand how people can criticise David so much, he's entirely correct with everything he said. People need to get jobs.[/QUOTE]
Somebody should educate him on the whole [I]supply and demand[/I] thing.
Since there's plenty of people looking for work, but second to none (legit) work available
Whoa I just read the wrong article.
He might have a point if it were as simple as just 'getting' jobs.
However, as it is, there are plenty of people who need welfare, and cutting it will only make them worse off, not give them inspiration they didn't have before to 'get' a job.
posters like this;
[img]http://db3.stb.s-msn.com/i/4E/CFF35731819F79B87443407BA976F5.jpg[/img]
have become a bit too ironic recently
The second I saw "David Cameron" in the title I knew he was going to do something fucking stupid again.
[QUOTE=SatansSin;34377045]As for the welfare thing, I do agree. Even here in Canada, I go down town in my city, and there are a bunch of druggies, alcoholics that LIVE off of a welfare check to get it. Now I know not all of them are like that, but when the paycheck that gets handed over to them, from people that actually work and have a family to maintain themselves?
It's sickening.[/QUOTE]
Fantastic anecdotal evidence we got here. Did you ask all the 'druggies' if they were in fact on welfare? Did you see them receive their checks? How is it in any way representative of welfare recipients as a whole?
You're doing it right Mr.Cameron.
[QUOTE=Van-man;34377090]Somebody should educate him on the whole [I]supply and demand[/I] thing.
Since there's plenty of people looking for work, but second to none (legit) work available[/QUOTE]
2.62 million unemployed people
Around 500,000 jobs currently
How many of that 2.6million do you think is living in a council estate and has done all their life? It is a well established fact that unemployed people are content with their lives without jobs. They aren't looking for jobs.
There's something like 2-3% of people claiming benefits longer than 6 months; it doesn't take 6 months to get a job.
Plenty of jobs for people. Go get them.
[QUOTE=SomeDumbShit;34377147]The second I saw "David Cameron" in the title I knew he was going to do something fucking stupid again.[/QUOTE]
How is it stupid? Could you explain instead of throwing baseless insults?
People aren't reading the first line of the article and properly paying attention to it. This isn't aimed so much at people who are genuinely looking for work but can't find any - it's aimed at people who think they don't have to work because they just rely on benefits. The idea of benefits isn't to pay people to be unemployed - it's to provide the minimum amount of financial support needed to live.
As much as I hate benefit 'cheats' mentioned in the article, this certainly wont be as successful as it could because getting a job is so hard at the moment. I don't think many families really need above 26K from benefits though.
[QUOTE=David29;34377195]People aren't reading the first line of the article and properly paying attention to it. This isn't aimed so much at people who are genuinely looking for work but can't find any - it's aimed at people who think they don't have to work because they just rely on benefits. The idea of benefits isn't to pay people to be unemployed - it's to provide the minimum amount of financial support needed to live.[/QUOTE]
In order to be looking at it like this I need to first assume that welfare provides enough money to live [I]comfortably,[/I] which is false. Second, I'd have to know roughly how many people are supposedly 'cheating the system'. I'm talking percentages here.
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;34376994]“And one of the reasons why in some households no one is working is because welfare has become so available.”[/QUOTE]
Hasn't this been disproved though? To the extent that something so vague can be disproved, but I've never heard of a single case study where someone lived on welfare and thought GEE YEAH WHAT A RADICAL ALTERNATIVE TO HAVING A NORMAL LIFESTYLE! Normally they all say "holy crap, my diet got ruined, my body got ruined, and even after finding work after months it was miles away doing something part time because that's all I could get."
[QUOTE=David29;34377195]People aren't reading the first line of the article and properly paying attention to it. This isn't aimed so much at people who are genuinely looking for work but can't find any - it's aimed at people who think they don't have to work because they just rely on benefits. The idea of benefits isn't to pay people to be unemployed - it's to provide the minimum amount of financial support needed to live.[/QUOTE]
This.
It has nothing to do with people who are on benefits because they can't get a job. He is talking about people who refuse to get a job and think living on benefits is a way of life.
I wish people would read the article sometimes.
I agree with him fucking leechers that don't even try shouldn't get any money.
Me and a friend hard time finding work. We are both graduated with building/carpeting whatever you call it in English after a 3 years of studies.
Since it was hard to find jobs, we studied in how to handle stuff like pcb and other hazardous material. We knew there was money to be made since it was a demand of such knowledge but no one wanted to employ anyone. So we simply started our own Demolish Business
Now we work at different demolish/renovation jobs, pretty much all the time 3-5days work a week depending on demand. Fucking perfect. What's more fun then break down doorways with gasmasks and get paid for it. We should fucking get Mike Rowe over to Sweden.
*Should had studied some better english grammars to after actually reading all that.
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;34377179]It is a well established fact that unemployed people are content with their lives without jobs. They aren't looking for jobs.[/QUOTE]
I'd love to see the studies that established this "fact".
[QUOTE=MADmarine;34377205]As much as I hate benefit 'cheats' mentioned in the article, this certainly wont be as successful as it could because getting a job is so hard at the moment. I don't think many families really need above 26K from benefits though.[/QUOTE]
None do. It is easily possible to provide for yourself, partner and two kids on below £26k.
He doesn't even know which benefits he's talking about.
The unemployed in this country are entitled to £65 a week. That's £3380 a year, WAYYY below the £26k they want to cap at.
Work out how your welfare system works before attacking the unemployed on it.
[QUOTE=erazor;34377078]So out of touch.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure David Cameron, member of the exclusive Bullingdon Club; descendent of royalty; son of a wealthy stock broker and the daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet, knows about the realities of life on welfare
[QUOTE=subenji99;34377317]He doesn't even know which benefits he's talking about.
The unemployed in this country are entitled to £65 a week. That's £3380 a year, WAYYY below the £26k they want to cap at.
Work out how your welfare system works before attacking the unemployed on it.[/QUOTE]
The unemployed get £3380 non-repayable from the government.
I, a student, get £3315 in SAAS loan, which I have to repay. I get no bursaries. It is disgusting.
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;34377179]It is a well established fact that unemployed people are content with their lives without jobs. They aren't looking for jobs.[/QUOTE]
That's a nice generalisation there.
By the way, I'm unemployed. I hate it. I'm trying as hard as I can to find work.
[QUOTE=subenji99;34377317]He doesn't even know which benefits he's talking about.
The unemployed in this country are entitled to £65 a week. That's £3380 a year, WAYYY below the £26k they want to cap at.
Work out how your welfare system works before attacking the unemployed on it.[/QUOTE]
Well that's wrong for a start. The base amount is ~£55, but this can change depending on a number of different factors such as children, savings, etc.
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;34377179]2.62 million unemployed people
Around 500,000 jobs currently
How many of that 2.6million do you think is living in a council estate and has done all their life? It is a well established fact that unemployed people are content with their lives without jobs. They aren't looking for jobs.
There's something like 2-3% of people claiming benefits longer than 6 months; it doesn't take 6 months to get a job.
Plenty of jobs for people. Go get them.[/QUOTE]
So if two or three percent of people don't want to work out of 2.6 million, how many more than five hundred thousand is that? Even using your own numbers there's a huge shortage of jobs.
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34377349]The unemployed get £3380 non-repayable from the government.
I, a student, get £3315 in SAAS loan, which I have to repay. I get no bursaries. It is disgusting.[/QUOTE]
Only when you can afford to pay it.
[QUOTE=David29;34377373]By the way, I'm unemployed. I hate it. I'm trying as hard as I can to find work.[/QUOTE]
But, as i'm sure you know, living on £80 a month food-wise is possible. You can also claim housing benefit.
I'm a student, I get no benefits, I get no bursaries, I have to live on £600/m. I work part time tech support to top up my loan + whatever my parents give me. My rent is £500/m.. unemployed people don't have to pay it.
If anyone wants to go into anecdotes, I could give you some. I live in the United States, by the way.
Well, my mother-in-law works about 8-10 hours a day at restaurant. She has no economic resources at all and she receives welfare checks because her job doesn't pay her enough to live in California. She barely can feed her kids, but she is a very ambitious person. She's also a single mother.
Also, I know a guy named John whose family is pretty white trash and his friends in general are pretty "hood." He quit his job and decided to live off of welfare because he assumed that it meant he could get high all day and play Call of Duty. Turns out, that wasn't the case. He lived pretty Spartan without a job and just relying on a government paycheck. He ended up selling almost all of his electronics and eventually moved in with his friend to mooch off of, but that friend told him that if he didn't get a job, he'd kick him out and leave him back with the welfare system. John now works at a factory.
I know the statement was directed at people who want to leech, but I just mentioned those things because I hear people talk about people on welfare as if they all just sit around and do nothing but get a paycheck and live comfortably off of that, and I wanted to give examples how that doesn't seem to be true in my experience.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.