Search results

Social Security =welfare over here. What's the difference on your side? [ETA: I see far more of an affront to dignity in having to resort to food banks than being in receipt of benefits. Also, what if you are able bodied but there are no jobs eg: in a time of high unemployment when there are...

According to your last post that's exactly what you want to do: they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. After all, you've done it so they all can, can't they?

Don't you think they've tried to do that? It just sounds like victim blaming to me; just because you got lucky doesn't mean that others don't have the deck stacked against them.

That looks like a 19th century 'solution' to a very real 21st century problem: it's been proven not to work, hence why we've moved on from that.

Many are not: A landmark study has linked Tory austerity to 120,000 deaths Universal credit plunges kids into poverty and 120,000 have died because of austerity – but Jacob Rees-Mogg wants more cuts Social care scandal as Tory cuts 'led to the deaths of 30,000 people' '30,000 excess deaths in...

We have people who want to work but can't; we also have people who are in work but can't afford to live - what's your great solution for them?

Because the previous alternative, Hooverville, was so great, wasn't it?

I have no problem with withdrawal of welfare from those who won't work: it's those who can't work who need to be supported

Why do you think it's become such a party political issue on your side of the Pond? Here on the rare occasions when it's debated in Parliament, legislators get a free (ie: non-partisan) vote.

No, Marxism is where there is no private property. [ETA - but interesting theory - does that apply to all public sector services eg: police, public libraries, schools, etc?]

So this is your answer to EW&F's question: for you it's the Constitution that's supreme,.

So many errors here...where to start? First it's not an 'unending supply ' of money; in this country it isn't nearly enough which is why our healthcare system is failing because it and other public sector services have been cut to beyond the bone. Secondly, it doesn't encourage dependence except...

As I said, solely Christian charity has been tried before and found sadly wanting. Until we have a Christian society then the government has to fill the gaps: that's not Marxism just common sense.

Trouble is history tells us that doesn't work. Try reading some Dickens for some examples of how it doenst work. Hence the necessity of the Welfare State. No more than it's a part of my faith that I like my taxes going to a military industrial complex that kills Iraqi and Yemeni children

It's a Novochok nerve agent and the site may be contaminated for quite a while...

The terrorist investigation is ongoing so the books aren't closed. Not sure what point you're trying to make

Presumably you would extend your outrage to the government spending your money on your behalf on law enforcement, defence, roads, etc? Or is it just the poor that you don't like it being spent on?

(a) I don't support the murder of unborn children (b) you're "this is all" says it all: "this is all" is actually quite a bit - you can't really claim to be pro-life AND support the sort of policies that FTW highlights; 'pro-birth' maybe

This is the right-wing equivalent of that bit in the French Revolution in the first half of 1794, when the Jacobins started guillotining each other for not being orthodox enough. Did anyone bring popcorn?

Maybe it's because we value other rights more highly than you clearly do that we rightly put limits on your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights that you hold so dear: like the right to not be terrorised in your own home, the right not to be verbally abused so you lose your unborn child, the right of...