David Norris - Social welfare shouldn't be spent on alcohol

Iwasfrozen

Smidge wrote: »

Only a person with no real life experience would make this statement.

It's rough, crude and utterly disparaging of people who you know absolutely nothing about.
Its hyperbole that you have read and heard but have never lived a minute of.

To even suggest the above shows how little you really know about the entire thing.
Your post simply comes across as you feel superior to those who are unemployed and deem them to be inferior in every shape way and form to despite the fact that they may have been made unemployed after 50 years of solid work and have paid their taxes to ALLOW them to collect unemployment payments.

Your opinion and attitude are infantile and simplistic beyond belief.

The world may never bite you on the ass considering your view suggests a certain privilege.
Thats a privilege you may not have earned so its easy to spout against all else.

Empathy is something learned. And when needed, most treasured.

No privilege growing up, I'm just a simple country lad and I've been in the workforce now for years so I have real life experience (though thankfully considering the hour not tomorrow). Your attempt to dismiss my argument by making assumptions against me personally is predictable.

Is there any reason why anything I've said isn't true?

Sweetemotion

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No privilege growing up, I'm just a simple country lad and I've been in the workforce now for years so I have real life experience (though thankfully considering the hour not tomorrow). Your attempt to dismiss my argument by making assumptions against me personally is predictable.

Is there any reason why anything I've said isn't true?

Have you ever got a yard brush and offered to sweep your neighbours yard? Have you ever got a sponge and basin and asked to wash a neighbours car?

Do you think these jobs would sustain a family a four and keep a roof over their heads? Pay the mortgage put the children through school, cloth them and feed them?

Iwasfrozen

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Have you ever got a yard brush and offered to sweep your neighbours yard? Have you ever got a sponge and basin and asked to wash a neighbours car?

Do you think these jobs would sustain a family a four and keep a roof over their heads? Pay the mortgage put the children through school, cloth them and feed them?

There's always money in jobs that no one else wants to do. One day you're calling round to houses on your own asking if they want you to clean their toilet the next thing you have a viable business employing others to clean with you, you're marketing your business in local media and hiring tools/equipment to provide a better service and raise your demand/profile further.

Sure it doesn't sound glamerous but if you have four kids in that situation (which you shouldn't but let's park that) then most enterprising people would do anything to make sure there is food on their kids plates.

The problems arise when we foster a culture that discourages enterprise and conditions people to stick their hands out at the first sign of trouble.

sonny.knowles

RayM wrote: »

Not the first stupid thing he's said this week. He's probably on a lot of medication. I wonder if that affects his judgement.

Didn't he try to use that excuse before?

sonny.knowles

I am more likely to change my opinion than agree with Mr. Norris on any issue.

A loud mouthed bully is all he is.

Boskowski

In fairness while its of course more of that totally over the top nanny state bollix there is a point to it from a certain angle. There is a school of thought - only sayin' - that welfare is emergency money to tie you over and should address your immediate needs. Not free money for ever and ever as long as you can tailor your lifestyle to the amount you receive. So if a welfare receiver is able to spend money on drugs they obviously don't really need it that badly do they?

And as it has been said before no, welfare receivers are not tax payers. They technically pay VAT on things yes but it hardly counts when they were given the money to pay that vat with in the first place does it?

I agree that on one level its outrageous but I have to say on another level there is reason to it.

JaCrispy

If a person on the dole can afford alcohol, holidays or any other luxuries then they are getting too much money from the state.

The dole is there to provide the primary needs to live such as shelter, food, heat etc...

suicide_circus

JaCrispy wrote: »

If a person on the dole can afford alcohol, holidays or any other luxuries then they are getting too much money from the state.

The dole is there to provide the primary needs to live such as shelter, food, heat etc...

With subsidised rent and fuel allowance there's cash left for cans

melissak

Someone on another thread said that we should look at the dole as a sort of social protection money, or a bribe to maintain the status quo or existing class structure. I think that this is true. If a group of people do not have enough to get by they will not starve to death quietly. They will revolt and go after your stuffand. If there are enough of them, they will take it. We do not have the army or gardai resources to deal with this. So norris etc all can make outraged statements all he wants but without a major overall of the system the dole has to be reasonable. David norris is a self-important overrpriviliged wind bag who wouldn't know hard work if it bit him on the arse. He and his kind are the real parasites in this country, but because he was born to money he thinks that he is entitled to the good life and the peasants should be Grateful to do his menial labour or sure let them eat cake. He is a major and ugly example of what is wrong with Irish society. He is a disgrace and the people who vote for him should be ashamed but due to the elitist nature of the Senate voting system they are likely to be as pompous as he.

DaraghMAC

JaCrispy wrote: »

If a person on the dole can afford alcohol, holidays or any other luxuries then they are getting too much money from the state.

The dole is there to provide the primary needs to live such as shelter, food, heat etc...

I agree with the first part of what you said but the second is not true. Jobseekers payments are for people to seek work on a daily basis until they find it. Sounds crazy but it is supposed to be spent on job seeking only. I work in social welfare and that is the contract that a jobseekers enters into with the state when their claim is approved.

You are right though, it should not be spent on luxuries

quinnd6

Have any of you people making absurd suggestions on how to make unemployed people's lives a living misery ever been unemployed yourself?
Do you know what it's like?
Do you care?
I'm guessing no to all 3.
So you guys seem to want to cause more homelessness, poverty, emigration and discrimination for people who can't get a job.
Aren't things bad enough as it is.

DaraghMAC

quinnd6 wrote: »

Have any of you people making absurd suggestions on how to make unemployed people's lives a living misery ever been unemployed yourself?
Do you know what it's like?
Do you care?
I'm guessing no to all 3.
So you guys seem to want to cause more homelessness, poverty, emigration and discrimination for people who can't get a job.
Aren't things bad enough as it is.

There is work out there for the people who really want it. How is stopping people spending the money that they are given to look for work on Alcohol going to make them homeless????? If anything it will do the opposite!! I was unemployed and now how soul destroying it is. I was unemployed in the uk and it's worse there.

The reality is that when you are on the dole you cannot afford luxuries of any kind.... That includes alcohol.

gladrags

JaCrispy wrote: »

The dole is there to provide the primary needs to live such as shelter, food, heat etc...

As there are no houses,and huge waiting lists,accompanied by spiralling rents,shelter is not an option,and as shelter is not an option,nor is heat.

DaraghMAC

Reading the posts on here and how people are so willing to defend undefendible behavior just goes to show what a problem this country has with alcohol. We see it as our devine right to drink and get drunk even to other people's detriment.

Bottom line is that alcohol is a luxury.

I worked on the front line in Social Protection during the crash and saw how hard it was for people but I got sick and tired of people coming in to sign on drunk or hungover from the night before. I started to refuse to sign them as they were unfit for work.

Would an employer accept someone turning up for work drunk or even drinking on their time.... I don't think so!!

While a person is on a jobseekers payment they are on the states dime and time and need to use it responsibly and for the purpose that it is given to them which is not for drink.

It's time to stop this idiotic defence of the right to drink alcohol

Huntergonzo

What better to spend your welfare money on than drink? The government screws ordinary people on a regular basis and favours the elite few so you should never feel guilty about spending some of your measly welfare money on a bit of liquid pleasure, the privileged senator Norris coming out saying otherwise just sounds to me like 'let them eat cake'.

Valetta

gladrags wrote: »

As there are no houses,and huge waiting lists,accompanied by spiralling rents,shelter is not an option,and as shelter is not an option,nor is heat.

Effectively what you are saying is that all (or most ?) people who are on the dole are homeless and cold.

This is clearly not the case, so maybe you could clarify exactly what you meant?

Alcohol is a luxury.

quinnd6

DaraghMAC wrote: »

Reading the posts on here and how people are so willing to defend undefendible behavior just goes to show what a problem this country has with alcohol. We see it as our devine right to drink and get drunk even to other people's detriment.

Bottom line is that alcohol is a luxury.

I worked on the front line in Social Protection during the crash and saw how hard it was for people but I got sick and tired of people coming in to sign on drunk or hungover from the night before. I started to refuse to sign them as they were unfit for work.

Would an employer accept someone turning up for work drunk or even drinking on their time.... I don't think so!!

While a person is on a jobseekers payment they are on the states dime and time and need to use it responsibly and for the purpose that it is given to them which is not for drink.

It's time to stop this idiotic defence of the right to drink alcohol

So you want to take unemployed people's rights away then.
What about someone who isn't an alcoholic and decides to have one can at the weekend just to chill.
You forget that not all unemployed people are alcoholics here it seems.
So you suggest that can be taken away from them and any form of entertainment in their lives.
So whats next you want the tv cut off aswell.
Miserable sod.

noodler

faceman wrote: »

Unfortunately we do live in a country where both the government and the banks can decide on how people can spend their income. Check out the personal insolvency legislation.

Stupid comparison.

You left out the part where you continue to remain in a property likely subsidised by the Irish taxpayer.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't tell me what I'm doing. Thank you very much.

You're trying to make a comparison between voluntary payment for a service and taxation where the comparison is invalid.

If I'm not happy with how my electricity company spends my money I can change companies or not avail of any of their services if I choose to. If I'm not happy with how the government chooses to spend my money I can't change providers short of leaving the country and even then I'll be taxed on any money domicile in Ireland.

I will when you're being obviously facetious. Your suggestion that people can just 'not avail of any of their services' - i.e. to completely do without electricity, and presenting that as a valid 'choice' - is extremely facetious and an argument you can only be using to aid your point, not as a realistic possibility.

The idea that anyone in this country will 'choose' to go without electricity, is an argument lacking in credibility - and expecting anyone to take you seriously when you make that argument, is just insulting really. Just about everyone knows electricity is such a vital/essential service, that it's as good as mandatory for almost everyone.

This is precisely your 'devils advocate' style of arguing, where you make an argument so ridiculous that even you can't credibly claim to believe it, yet you still pretend to just for the sake of holding on to and debating it - despite there being no value in that whatsoever; you use that tactic solely to obstruct useful debate.

KomradeBishop

DaraghMAC wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are way off the mark there. I work in social welfare and there are loads of jobs. Irish people will just not take them. We point out jobs to people all the time and try and encourage them to apply and go for interviews etc but they won't if they feel they could get a better job. Pride has them sitting at home bitching about the economy, nama, the government, bankers, the Germans and public servants and before you know it they are on the dole for a year. On the other hand I have seen Polish and other European nationals with MBA's and PhD's take cleaning or shop work just to stay working. The Irish, who used to be so hard working, have turned into a bunch of spoilt brats.
Before you start saying typical opinionated Civil Servant in his cushy permanent job, I have worked in the private sector and been unemployed so I know what it's like. I also run my own business in my spare time. There is work if you want it!!

Your anecdote of working in social welfare is just that - an anecdote. Anecdotes are inferior to stats. The stats prove that you are wrong - there are jobs, but there are not enough jobs.

Explain why our 'unemployed per job vacancy' figure is so high, for instance? (i.e. the number of unemployed people for every job vacancy)
http://www.nerinstitute.net/blog/2014/09/02/latest-data-on-the-vacancy-rate/

fawlty682

He was not talking about people on social welfare having a drink. He was obviously targeting those who spend the day in the pub after getting the money.

JaCrispy

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Explain why our 'unemployed per job vacancy' figure is so high, for instance? (i.e. the number of unemployed people for every job vacancy

Because we have too many people who are dole for lifers.

KomradeBishop

So there are only enough jobs for 1 in every 24 unemployed people (probably closer to 20 now), and this is the fault of....dole lifers? Some real underpants-gnome logic there.

JaCrispy

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So there are only enough jobs for 1 in every 24 unemployed people (probably closer to 20 now), and this is the fault of....dole lifers? Some real underpants-gnome logic there.

Lets get this right. You are saying that all unemployed people want a job regardless of pay and conditions?

KomradeBishop

JaCrispy wrote: »

Lets get this right. You are saying that all unemployed people want a job regardless of pay and conditions?

No - I'm saying that there are not enough jobs to go around, and I've provided proof of this, in the form of multiple different stats.

However - the vast majority of unemployed people do in fact want jobs, and there are stats to prove that as well - we have one of the best/lowest figures in Europe, for unemployed people not seeking a job, almost on-par with Germany:
https://rwer.wordpress.com/2015/03/29/graph-of-the-day-people-available-to-work-but-not-seeking-a-job/

pauliebdub

I think he's right but perhaps clumsily put. It also doesn't help that is upper middle class and elitist who appears to be patronising poor people, that's probably going to rile people.

steddyeddy

LexieOnRale wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

LexieOnRale wrote: »

You know it's this attitude that annoys me. I had a girl I know turn around to me once and say "it was alright for you, we don't all have rich daddies".

Because Steddy, at 20 odd years old you decide to become your own person. I buy this "you can't help who your family are" when you're a child and have no choice. It's the same attitude shown to anti social families, ah sure what chance do the kids have?

You're talking in terms of black and white. I don't think it's as simple as supportive parents=successful child and vice versa. It is however a lot easier for children of supportive parents than those who don't care.

I would have to abandon all logic to think otherwise.

You might not have a mother and father who'll get up and bring you to school when you're young enough to need them but at 15 or 16 you're old enough to do what you need to do, get yourself up and washed and out to school.
And even if you're not, at 23 you have the choice of going to college as a mature student. You cannot blame as an adult your parents for you still doing nothing with your life late 20s.

No you can't eventually you change it but your parents have the primary effect on ones life. I can't believe their influence stops at 23. It's certainly not what I observed.

And it's only being enabled, leaving people like that to claim all sorts of benefits, get Christmas bonuses, reward them for having children they can't support.

Yes I agree but this is more reason to pity their children than to judge them.

"They didn't have the same start as you did" only washes for a certain period, while they're not old enough to create their own start.

True but I stand by what I said. It's a lot harder for some than others. I don't think it's good sport to judge those who had less than stellar support early on in life.

Again no offense meant but you did say you were given your rent and you also got your fees paid for while spending a lot of time getting wasted. Is this any position for a moral high ground?

gladrags

Valetta wrote: »

Effectively what you are saying is that all (or most ?) people who are on the dole are homeless and cold.

This is clearly not the case, so maybe you could clarify exactly what you meant?

Alcohol is a luxury.

I did not imply any such thing,you did.

The houses and rental accommodation available to low income and high income workers ,are becoming increasingly scarce, and increasingly expensive.

Alcohol aside, or any other luxury aside, it is near impossible for most people to find reasonably priced accommodation.

gctest50

pauliebdub wrote: »

I think he's right but perhaps clumsily put. It also doesn't help that is upper middle class and elitist who appears to be patronising poor people, that's probably going to rile people.

If the off-licence and bookie trade perceive it as a threat, i'd give it 'till Christmas before he is found dead in the Phoenix Park


hmm wonder what odds you'd get on that

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I will when you're being obviously facetious. Your suggestion that people can just 'not avail of any of their services' - i.e. to completely do without electricity, and presenting that as a valid 'choice' - is extremely facetious and an argument you can only be using to aid your point, not as a realistic possibility.

The idea that anyone in this country will 'choose' to go without electricity, is an argument lacking in credibility - and expecting anyone to take you seriously when you make that argument, is just insulting really. Just about everyone knows electricity is such a vital/essential service, that it's as good as mandatory for almost everyone.

This is precisely your 'devils advocate' style of arguing, where you make an argument so ridiculous that even you can't credibly claim to believe it, yet you still pretend to just for the sake of holding on to and debating it - despite there being no value in that whatsoever; you use that tactic solely to obstruct useful debate.

I'm not wasting any more time on this. Post reported. Attacking the poster is against the rules of the forum but you seem incapable of anything else.