You know what, it isn't a fair comparison at all. This woman's benefit bill is in the thousands, however, the corporate greed machine that avoids taxes are in the billions. But hey, that's alright isn't it.
Even pensioners "sponge" more on the benefits bill but since most of them vote Tory they get to keep "scrounging".
WOW! What a useful gift you have. You are able to read someones thoughts, purely by reading unconnected words on an internet forum. You don't do the lottery numbers do you? :rolleyes:
Where did I even write the words you are attributing to me? :rolleyes:
Where do you get the notion that I was quoting you?
If I could read someones thoughts I'd be posting statements not asking questions. The little sqiggly shaped thing at the end of the sentence is a bit of a clue.
Besides, if I could read minds i seriously doubt yours would make the list of those I'd take a sneaky look at, so fear not
Taking the mick out of the sensationalist tabloid press?
Yes it was.
You were ridiculing what is a story of genuine public concern. The press try to gild it until it's out of all proportion whilst you were trying to diminish the basis of it by parody.
A parody that is just IMO. I mean a parrot? of all the things the press could attack her for, they attack her for having a pet? what if it was a cat, would that be wrong too?
So yes this story should be ridiculed. The HB and CB is all that matters, not the fact she owns a pet.
I eagerly await with excitement the next thrilling revelation, I suspect that she may be using tampax, prepared to be outraged as this is funded by the tax payer etc.
No amount of bluster will take away from what is a disgraceful situation.
knocking out 11 kids at her age wouldn't have left much time for working pre-motherhood. How does her daughter pay for the upkeep of the horse?
The issue of the cancer has nothing to do with her benefit lifestyle choices.
Again, another one who shows their complete lack of desire to find out more about the story. Because it doesn't fit in with their prejudices and bigotry.
She 'looked' at a business to open a shop, hmmm. And what job was she hoping to waltz into that paid the equivalent of having benefits for 11 kids??? The cancer concern has nothing what so ever to do with her lifestyle choice.
This is why some people who support the right-wing's notion of lazy scroungers at every turn, are considered to be calous and heartless.
CSA to track down and seek payment from absent fathers, any failure = courts. CB reduced to support two children under 16 only, remainder are on your books not ours. Stay in the house she is in. Any good for a start? or are you just going to continue making childish cheap shots and not offer anything constructive? let her carry on milking us dry?
Again, more refusal to look, before one presses "submit reply."
Pensioners have generally paid their taxes and put into the system, this woman and her ilk have not.
Anymore useless and pathetic analogies?
What about the ones who have never worked? yes, there are pensioners that never worked as strange as it might sound.
We are also told that people should make provisions for the future, like this woman should have made provisions for her future, so then if this is true Tory rhetoric then why are pensioners not using money out of their own pockets and their own private pensions rather than sponging off the State?
We are also seeing the pension bill increase year on year as more and more people live longer, this will not last forever and the pension bubble will eventually burst as the pension bill gets out of control.
Then there is the issue of low-paid workers who take up I believe the 2nd most out of the welfare bill, how do you tackle a welfare bill when the 2 largest drains on it are getting bigger but the disability and unemployment elements are coming down?
Don't think I'm trying to defend this parasite and her brood, I'm not, I've already made my thoughts clear in what I think should be done. What she is doing is legal and above board however her and her ilk are not the biggest problems facing the benefit bill, or indeed the economy as a whole.
No but in the minds of most people they will lump benefits together and one case every so often does not make good case law in my view.
So you're accusing 'most' people of being too thick to be able to tell the difference between a state funded incubator and a family who have found themselves in need of support for one reason or another?
Sorry, but that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation and anything you offer towards backing that up simply demonstrates that this country must truly be dumbing down at an alarming rate.
Why do large number of left leaning people peddle the myth that anyone who leans to the right of their stance is too thick to have a valid opinion? It's not so much tiresome as it is pathetic.
You know what, it isn't a fair comparison at all. This woman's benefit bill is in the thousands, however, the corporate greed machine that avoids taxes are in the billions. But hey, that's alright isn't it.
and THIS pregnant unemployed mother who is moving into a 20 bedroomed palace will, on her own, get millions of tax payers pounds,
But that's OK because she's "a royal", and we ALL love the royals, we all love the royals repeat after me, we all love the royals, the telly tells us we do,
A national newspaper can single out ONE 'poor person' and use them to incite hatred towards every and anyone who claims any kind of benefit, In order to support their Tory 'chums' in their class war,
this person costs the tax payer a tiny fraction of what certain other 'under occupying benefit claimants' cost the tax payer
now, know your place pay up and smile,
I don't need to. The coalition are already starting to tackle the ridiculously over generous £160bn per year welfare budget. I suspect it is you that needs to toddle off and lobby your MP seeing as you love it, and probably want the bill to be twice that. Any facts to support your allegation about wastrels in parliament? It does sound like a lazy throwaway cliché that's all. I wouldn't be surprised if these "wastrels" sit on the opposition benches though.
Aah....that's a great number isn't it? How much of that is actually spent on out of work benefits?
knocking out 11 kids at her age wouldn't have left much time for working pre-motherhood. How does her daughter pay for the upkeep of the horse?
The issue of the cancer has nothing to do with her benefit lifestyle choices.
She's reported as saying in the local rag that it was only the cervical cancer scare that stopped her having more kids so all that supposed talk about wanting to open a shop (with what?) sounds a little dodgy because she'd still have been breeding.
Imagine if she worked for a big company and today announced she was pregnant with her first. Would she be entitled to thirteen years maternity pay from said company because her womb is akin to the conveyor belt on the generation game?
Could the country pay it's debts today if they were called in?
If not, then it is bankrupt.
Nearly all Western countries are bankrupt.
They just don't have the balls to admit it because it would be an admittance of failure on their part and possibly cause the markets, globally to crash.
Benefit cheats, tax dodging and those issues are not going to be relevant when the EU and the USA go belly up. And this is only a matter of time.
Where do you get the notion that I was quoting you?
If I could read someones thoughts I'd be posting statements not asking questions. The little sqiggly shaped thing at the end of the sentence is a bit of a clue.
Besides, if I could read minds i seriously doubt yours would make the list of those I'd take a sneaky look at, so fear not
Are you really being serious? You actually asked me where I got the notion that you were quoting me? Perhaps it was the very fact that you quoted me in your post!
What a thoroughly ridiculous question. I am genuinely quite shocked that you would even think about asking it. :eek:
Comments
Even pensioners "sponge" more on the benefits bill but since most of them vote Tory they get to keep "scrounging".
Don't be silly, it far easier for the likes of Ian Duncan Smith to punch her in the face, than to make the CSA be fit for purpose.
Where do you get the notion that I was quoting you?
If I could read someones thoughts I'd be posting statements not asking questions. The little sqiggly shaped thing at the end of the sentence is a bit of a clue.
Besides, if I could read minds i seriously doubt yours would make the list of those I'd take a sneaky look at, so fear not
How can it be "sponging" if you've actually paid into the pot - rather than just taking out
Pensioners have generally paid their taxes and put into the system, this woman and her ilk have not.
Anymore useless and pathetic analogies?
Taking the mick out of the sensationalist tabloid press?
Yes it was.
A parody that is just IMO. I mean a parrot? of all the things the press could attack her for, they attack her for having a pet? what if it was a cat, would that be wrong too?
So yes this story should be ridiculed. The HB and CB is all that matters, not the fact she owns a pet.
I eagerly await with excitement the next thrilling revelation, I suspect that she may be using tampax, prepared to be outraged as this is funded by the tax payer etc.
Having 11 kids is disgraceful I agree.
Again, another one who shows their complete lack of desire to find out more about the story. Because it doesn't fit in with their prejudices and bigotry.
This is why some people who support the right-wing's notion of lazy scroungers at every turn, are considered to be calous and heartless.
Again, more refusal to look, before one presses "submit reply."
What about the ones who have never worked? yes, there are pensioners that never worked as strange as it might sound.
We are also told that people should make provisions for the future, like this woman should have made provisions for her future, so then if this is true Tory rhetoric then why are pensioners not using money out of their own pockets and their own private pensions rather than sponging off the State?
We are also seeing the pension bill increase year on year as more and more people live longer, this will not last forever and the pension bubble will eventually burst as the pension bill gets out of control.
Then there is the issue of low-paid workers who take up I believe the 2nd most out of the welfare bill, how do you tackle a welfare bill when the 2 largest drains on it are getting bigger but the disability and unemployment elements are coming down?
Don't think I'm trying to defend this parasite and her brood, I'm not, I've already made my thoughts clear in what I think should be done. What she is doing is legal and above board however her and her ilk are not the biggest problems facing the benefit bill, or indeed the economy as a whole.
Nice try
So you're accusing 'most' people of being too thick to be able to tell the difference between a state funded incubator and a family who have found themselves in need of support for one reason or another?
Sorry, but that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation and anything you offer towards backing that up simply demonstrates that this country must truly be dumbing down at an alarming rate.
Why do large number of left leaning people peddle the myth that anyone who leans to the right of their stance is too thick to have a valid opinion? It's not so much tiresome as it is pathetic.
Oh dear....Osborne really did a number on you, didn't he! :rolleyes:
You are, of course forgetting that he was reprimanded by the Treasury Select Committee for lying about the country being bankrupt.
http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2013/02/kate-middleton-benefit-scrounging-mother-moves-palace-taxpayers-expense
and THIS pregnant unemployed mother who is moving into a 20 bedroomed palace will, on her own, get millions of tax payers pounds,
But that's OK because she's "a royal", and we ALL love the royals, we all love the royals repeat after me, we all love the royals, the telly tells us we do,
A national newspaper can single out ONE 'poor person' and use them to incite hatred towards every and anyone who claims any kind of benefit, In order to support their Tory 'chums' in their class war,
this person costs the tax payer a tiny fraction of what certain other 'under occupying benefit claimants' cost the tax payer
now, know your place pay up and smile,
Welcome to conditioning
Yes, but for different reasons.
And who was in this treasury select committee?
Aah....that's a great number isn't it? How much of that is actually spent on out of work benefits?
Well...I would hazard a guess, far more sensible people than you, or even Osborne.
Could the country pay it's debts today if they were called in?
If not, then it is bankrupt.
Just answer the question.
She's reported as saying in the local rag that it was only the cervical cancer scare that stopped her having more kids so all that supposed talk about wanting to open a shop (with what?) sounds a little dodgy because she'd still have been breeding.
Imagine if she worked for a big company and today announced she was pregnant with her first. Would she be entitled to thirteen years maternity pay from said company because her womb is akin to the conveyor belt on the generation game?
Just a thought.
Nearly all Western countries are bankrupt.
They just don't have the balls to admit it because it would be an admittance of failure on their part and possibly cause the markets, globally to crash.
Benefit cheats, tax dodging and those issues are not going to be relevant when the EU and the USA go belly up. And this is only a matter of time.
Best we all start to learn how to speak Chinese.
Are you really being serious? You actually asked me where I got the notion that you were quoting me? Perhaps it was the very fact that you quoted me in your post!
What a thoroughly ridiculous question. I am genuinely quite shocked that you would even think about asking it. :eek:
The working poor get accused of being "scroungers," when they have been paying into the pot, why should pensioners be excempt?