No contraception, no dole

cajonlardo

ColeTrain wrote: »

He is right.

There's too many on welfare having children and making it a lifestyle choice for themselves. Why should the taxpayer support this choice?

off the top of my head I can easily think of several different families where the parents were on welfare and the kids went on to lead very productive lives. In fact I know one who saved a family from a fire as well as being the first lad we ask when we need volunteers in the community.

On the other hand I can just as easily think of the offspring of people in well paid employment all their lives who are just a drain on our community - drug taking drunken, speeding and dangerous driving etc

Flippant remarks and observations are....well, just flippant

VinLieger

sup_dude wrote: »

What an awful lot of people do is try to make out that all or majority of dole receivers are spongers, and that's ignoring reality on a worse scale. I'd love to see those statistics, but they'd also have to define circumstance.

Very true about defining it and I dont believe all of or even the majority are "spongers" but I do believe its also a larger number than some on here would claim

pocketkings

All you people complaining about people living such a cushy life on the dole - why don't you quit your job and sign up then?


No?


Then shut the fcuk up and be grateful for what you have. Moany cuunts.

You lot are one of the worst aspects of Irish society. Not the (vastly overestimated in number) scroungers, its you fcuking whingers that p1ss me off. Get on with your own life and stop complaining that poor people have it better than you do.

wexandproud

Tasden wrote: »

I'm assuming you mean their social welfare should be reduced if maintenance is paid (which currently happens as it stands) and not child benefit? Or do you actually think child benefit, a flat rate universal payment, should be reduced for single parents who receive maintenance?

sorry my error. ment child benefit, but i do think naming fathers so maintenance could be stopped at source should be enforced so both parents accountable

darkpagandeath

VinLieger wrote: »

Very true about defining it and I dont believe all of or even the majority are "spongers" but I do believe its also a larger number than some on here would claim

Onus is on the "They are all Scroungers" to provide the figures or are they pulling them kind of statement's out of their holes ?

I believe the social has been cracking down on all levels within the system got rid of most of the fraudulent claims too. And shock horror the amount of fraudulent claims was tiny, compared to the anecdotal their are people flying in from all over the EU.

wexandproud

pocketkings wrote: »

All you people complaining about people living such a cushy life on the dole - why don't you quit your job and sign up then?


No?


Then shut the fcuk up and be grateful for what you have. Moany cuunts.

You lot are one of the worst aspects of Irish society. Not the (vastly overestimated in number) scroungers, its you fcuking whingers that p1ss me off. Get on with your own life and stop complaining that poor people have it better than you do.

now now , temper temper

SMJSF

I'd be only over the moon if this came in!! (yes I'm female, no kids and not a sleep around) and I'd be picking the best kind - tubes tied.

and BTW, yes I'm on welfare, doing a good course, I don't have a fancy TV or phone - both worth about €50 together at this stage.

DeJa VooDoo

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Onus is on the "They are all Scroungers" to provide the figures or are they pulling them kind of statement's out of their holes ?

I believe the social has been cracking down on all levels within the system got rid of most of the fraudulent claims too. And shock horror the amount of fraudulent claims was tiny, compared to the anecdotal their are people flying in from all over the EU.

Most of the overpayments or 'fraudulent claims' that Burton goes on about every year turn out to be admin errors made by the PS workers in her department.
That's a verifiable fact.

darkpagandeath

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Most of the overpayments or 'fraudulent claims' that Burton goes on about every year turn out to be admin errors made by the PS workers in her department.
That's a verifiable fact.

Or employees in the system ahem.

Ave Sodalis

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Most of the overpayments or 'fraudulent claims' that Burton goes on about every year turn out to be admin errors made by the PS workers in her department.
That's a verifiable fact.

Plus, I don't know how many people realise this but anyone notice how not a single thing was said about any of this until the newspapers started publishing stories about the very very few scrongers that exist and suddenly everyone's experts, and very concerned about how their taxes are spent on something that's existed for a very long time. Most of the scrongers were there before the recession and yet those who have been made go on the dole since then are the ones paying for it with ignorance of the general public and the propaganda from the papers. I had said when the first story was published that people are actually going to believe this crap, and hey presto, here we are today with threads like these popping up on a weekly basis...

DeJa VooDoo

sup_dude wrote: »

Plus, I don't know how many people realise this but anyone notice how not a single thing was said about any of this until the newspapers started publishing stories about the very very few scrongers that exist and suddenly everyone's experts, and very concerned about how their taxes are spent on something that's existed for a very long time. Most of the scrongers were there before the recession and yet those who have been made go on the dole since then are the ones paying for it with ignorance of the general public and the propaganda from the papers. I had said when the first story was published that people are actually going to believe this crap, and hey presto, here we are today with threads like these popping up on a weekly basis...

As I've said, I remember the recession in the 1980's and the papers were full of the 'unmarried mothers' bullsh1te then too.
A percentage of people take the p1ss, the majority don't.

davidfitz22

pocketkings wrote: »

All you people complaining about people living such a cushy life on the dole - why don't you quit your job and sign up then?


No?


Then shut the fcuk up and be grateful for what you have. Moany cuunts.

You lot are one of the worst aspects of Irish society. Not the (vastly overestimated in number) scroungers, its you fcuking whingers that p1ss me off. Get on with your own life and stop complaining that poor people have it better than you do.

P*ss off, they have a right to be annoyed when they have to pay for benefits available to others that they cannot get like medical cards. People milking the system leads to increased taxes to fund this lifestyle which leads to even less money available to joe soap who works 40 hours a week with no aid.

FullblownRose

Dean0088 wrote: »

Well, abortion isn't something I'd see as a solution. But it's not like the UK is some far away land. A few hundred quid if booked at last minute prices tbh. Might be a stretch if you're on the dole but then:

a) don't get pregnant in the first place. Use one or more of the myriad of 99% options out there

b) Order online from that womans network site thing

c) Borrow €200 and fly to London/Manchester, there and back on the same day.

Someone else has replied to correct you on the england option.
I will just add that you need a passport to travel to the U.K..I think it's definitely needed for Ryanair and you *could* be asked for it with other airlines. If someone's short of cash they probably don't have a passport.

As for ordering abortion pills online, they aren't free, they can't be posted to the republic do a post restante address in N.I is necessary along with the travel costs from wherever you live in the republic, and accomodation if you can't get there and back due to train or bus timetables, and there's still the chance that you could get caught.

darkpagandeath

davidfitz22 wrote: »

P*ss off, they have a right to be annoyed when they have to pay for benefits available to others that they cannot get like medical cards. People milking the system leads to increased taxes to fund this lifestyle which leads to even less money available to joe soap who works 40 hours a week with no aid.

Figures to backup this ?

was.deevey

I agree somewhat with this "Lunatic" to some extent.

My view is simply, if you are on the Social Welfare system, you should not be having babies - you get yourself out of the hole and THEN start a family.

The Contraceptive Implant is 99.9% reversible and currently available under the medical card - thats alot of social welfare pregnancies that could be prevented and has few side effects (outside persons with pre-existing medical conditions).

I would put it something like this....

You have kids and you lose your job:
- You will be allowed to claim Dole and CA. However you will not be allowed additional state benefit if you decide to go ahead and have another baby.

You have no kids and on the Dole:
You get the implant, if the contraception fails you will be given benefit.

You refuse the implant, You are on the Dole and decide to have a kid anyhow.
You will not get any state benefit.

You have the implant and the impant fails
You will recieve state benefit as normal.

People on the dole on the existing system
You will not be allowed to claim for any additional children you choose to have.

The aim is not to stop people having babies, its to prevent people who are reliant on the state for financial support from draining an already heaving system from breeding more until such time as they can afford it on their own.

If there was a way of the guy to get an implant as well, I would have suggested that as an alternative.

darkpagandeath

was.deevey wrote: »

I agree somewhat with this "Lunatic" to some extent.

My view is simply, if you are on the Social Welfare system, you should not be having babies - you get yourself out of the hole and THEN start a family.

The Contraceptive Implant is 99.9% reversible and currently available under the medical card - thats alot of social welfare pregnancies that could be prevented and has few side effects (outside persons with pre-existing medical conditions).

I would put it something like this for couples.

You have kids and you lose your job:
- You will be allowed to claim Dole and CA. However you will not be allowed additional state benefit if you decide to go ahead and have another baby.

You have no kids and on the Dole:
You get the implant, if the contraception fails you will be given benefit.

You refuse the implant, You are on the Dole and decide to have a kid anyhow.
You will not get any state benefit.

You have the implant and the impant fails
You will recieve state benefit as normal.

People on the dole on the existing system
You will not be allowed to claim for any additional children they choose to have.

The aim is not to stop people having babies, its to prevent people who are reliant on the state for financial support from draining an already heaving system.

If there was a way of the guy to get an implant as well, I would have suggested that as an alternative.

I'm sure you would be happy for your sister/wife/girlfriend to go this route ?

Ave Sodalis

was.deevey wrote: »

The Contraceptive Implant is 99.9% reversible and currently available under the medical card - thats alot of social welfare pregnancies that could be prevented and has few side effects (outside persons with pre-existing medical conditions).

Why the implant? Many doctors refuse to put it in, my own included as the side effects occur so often that they haven't had one that they haven't take out within a month or two. What if a woman has a bad reaction? What if you use the injection and she has a bad reaction? If you're going to go down this route, at least think of the consequences...

rob316

I would imagine its against your human rights to be forced to take contraception in any circumstance.

was.deevey

sup_dude wrote: »

Why the implant? Many doctors refuse to put it in, my own included as the side effects occur so often that they haven't had one that they haven't take out within a month or two. What if a woman has a bad reaction? What if you use the injection and she has a bad reaction? If you're going to go down this route, at least think of the consequences...

Mainly as its a failsafe solution that is not easily tampered with and lasts for a long duration - of course any failsafe system could be used. I just used the implant as an example.

was.deevey

I would imagine its against your human rights to be forced to take contraception in any circumstance.

Most probably.

It should probably be against human rights to willingly have children without any means of non-state support also though.

darkpagandeath

was.deevey wrote: »

Mainly as its a failsafe solution that is not easily tampered with and lasts for a long duration - of course any failsafe system could be used. I just used the implant as an example.

Could always move to China They have stuff like this, Am sure people would agree with being told how many kids you can and can't have.

was.deevey wrote: »

Most probably.

It should probably be against human rights to willingly have children without any means of non-state support also though.

With an already ageing population if you restrict peoples ability to have children who is going to be your doctor nurse care worker when you are old prey tell ?

VinLieger

was.deevey wrote: »

Most probably.

It should probably be against human rights to willingly have children without any means of non-state support also though.

Exactly bringing a child into the world when you have no viable way of supporting them yourself is disgraceful

VinLieger

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Could always move to China They have stuff like this, Am sure people would agree with being told how many kids you can and can't have.

You can have as many kids as you want just make sure you are able to support them with your own income and are not relying on the state to do it for you.

darkpagandeath

VinLieger wrote: »

You can have as many kids as you want just make sure you are able to support them with your own income and are not relying on the state to do it for you.

Who will look after you in your old age when you restrict peoples ability to have children. We already have an ageing population and a care crisis on the horizon.

yipeeeee

Benefits and entitlement.

Why are these words associated with having kids, or been on social welfare?

Im entitled to this and that.

No-one I'm life is entitled to anything unless you earn it.

Gatling

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Most of the overpayments or 'fraudulent claims' that Burton goes on about every year turn out to be admin errors made by the PS workers in her department.
That's a verifiable fact.

Varifiy away then

darkpagandeath

yipeeeee wrote: »

Benefits and entitlement.

Why are these words associated with having kids, or been on social welfare?

Im entitled to this and that.

No-one I'm life is entitled to anything unless you earn it.

Government came up with them, Same way now you are a customer when on SW or going to the hospital.

CarpeDiem85

Haven't we all benefited from the state through the Children's Allowance though!? I know I certainly did. I'm 29 now, my father worked hard to bring up his family but I know for a fact that if my parents hadn't got the Children's Allowance, then some weeks we would have gone hungry.

was.deevey

Who will look after you in your old age when you restrict peoples ability to have children. We already have an ageing population and a care crisis on the horizon.

If there was less drain on the SW system as a whole, tax breaks would be offered to people with jobs who "could potentially" afford kids, but currently not quite afford them along with a high education and living standard.

Tax incentives would be for the likes of child minding services / clothing / schooling which these folks in many cases "just" fall outside the threshold for gaining any benefits whatsoever and as a result focus solely on their careers forgoing having many, if any, children.

Theres far too many generations that have been born into the system, that live in the system, that have their own kids in the system.

Who will look after you in your old age when you restrict peoples ability to have children. We already have an ageing population and a care crisis on the horizon.

What we need to do is make having kids a financially viable option for young professionals.

Haven't we all benefited from the state through the Children's Allowance though!? I know I certainly did. I'm 29 now, my father worked hard to bring up his family but I know for a fact that if my parents hadn't got the Children's Allowance, then some weeks we would have gone hungry.

My mom worked her ass off too and I too remember that trip to the post office, however at what point did he know that having kids was unsustainable without state support, before or after.

Calina

was.deevey wrote: »

Mainly as its a failsafe solution that is not easily tampered with and lasts for a long duration - of course any failsafe system could be used. I just used the implant as an example.

In general, state sanctioning or people to take a pharmaceutical product as part of an economic policy is a fascist approach and in this case, a gender discriminatory policy given it only impacts women.

There are health risks associated with forced medication and there are health risks associated with any hormonal treatment. I find it fascinating sometimes that it's usually men go on about all women being able to take the pill. It is contraindicated in some cases. So a blanket regulation of this nature would be an extremely stupid path to follow.

In any case, I doubt very much whether the vast majority of welfare recipients are really milking the system to any massive extent. Given the difference in unemployment now compared to 10 years ago, it is clear the desire is to work rather than layabout. Again, punishing the many for the sins of view is...rather dictatorial in my view.

Contraception, for the most part, is a prescription medication. This means you get it in consultation with a medical professional only. For those of you who are yammering on about what a great idea this is, it would be interesting to know how many of you are actually experts in medicine. My suspicion is not many. I'm not myself, but then, I'm not arguing in favour of a very stupid idea either.