Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

tom1ie

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No. But if you apply that argument to future ms cashs we won’t ever break this welfare vicious circle.
Giving another increase to the dole, without applying certain limitations such as reducing Payements over time, for long term unemployed is crazy. All it does is promote a welfare state.
Surely you can see that.

dominatinMC

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, but what exactly are you advocating? That anyone who earns less than the cost of childcare for their x number of children shouldn't work and instead rely on the state to pay for it? Some logic that is!

ELM327

Silent Running wrote: »

I asked earlier what Margaret Gimme Cash does with all of the money she gets. I still wonder. Where does it all go?

Maybe she's very tech savvy and was in cryptos before the boom? :pac::pac:

dominatinMC

tom1ie wrote: »

No. But if you apply that argument to future ms cashs we won’t ever break this welfare vicious circle.
Giving another increase to the dole, without applying certain limitations such as reducing Payements over time, for long term unemployed is crazy. All it does is promote a welfare state.
Surely you can see that.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see" springs to mind

Gatling

Lux23 wrote: »

Jesus, you're really digging dip to explain why you think it's perfectly acceptable for young children to sleep in a Garda station at night.

They have somewhere to sleep she was offered houses but said no .

The only reason she was in tallaght Garda station is because she choose to be

Jasper79

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe if she had been responsible and not had 7 children which she obviously cannot afford then she would not be in the position she currently finds herself in.

PlaneSpeeking

ELM327 wrote: »

Maybe she's very tech savvy and was in cryptos before the boom? :pac::pac:

Can see her mining Bitcoin easily enough so. ;);)

ELM327

Lux23 wrote: »

Sure this woman and her partner probably shouldn't have had seven children unless she can have them but now that they're here -what is your solution? How can it be fixed? How do we get a welfare dependent family away from this kind of life?

Change the policy so future "parents" cannot scam the system in the same way.

PlaneSpeeking

ELM327 wrote: »

Change the policy so future "parents" cannot scam the system in the same way.

Babies have taken the same length of time to make since the dawn of man - announce in the 2018 Budget (October is it ?) that from January 1 2020 NEW welfare claims will be capped at two children (allowing for a second pregnancy to be a multiple birth).

No excuses - current families not affected which will cost us in the short term but at least we're finding a way out in the future.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Jasper79

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Like most things its best not to get yourself into these situations. Especially when you are expecting other people who owe you nothing, to pick up the tab.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

22michael44

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it's debate, mate. just keep repeating the same, useless observation over and over

Jasper79

22michael44 wrote: »

it's debate, mate. just keep repeating the same, useless observation over and over

How is it useless observation ? I don't have 7 kids amongst other reasons I cannot afford 7 children. I take responsibility for my family, she obviously has very little in that regard.

dominatinMC

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

For a multitude of reasons, first and foremost of which would be so that you can eventually progress to a position which pays more and allows you to actually pay for the childcare, and have a bit leftover for yourself. You get a sense of self-worth from that situation, instead of a sense of entitlement which is what has been proliferated by the current social policies.

VinLieger

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But why should the state be responsible for picking up the tab on the decisions you have made to have more children than you can afford?

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

c.p.w.g.w

Melendez wrote: »

Tell me how the state would be in a better position if someone got a job earning €350 and had to pay over €1000 in childcare. There would just be another €650+ for the state to plug in emergency aid.

That ship has long sailed.

There in line's the problem. Doing a costing for raising a child before you have 1,2 or maybe 7.

My sister had her second nor so long a go but before deciding weather to try for a second herself and her husband worked out everything down to the last cent. To see how they could cover day care, cost of putting them both through school etc

Responsible adults

VinLieger

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well first of all the problems with the cost of childcare are another issue that everyone agrees needs serious fixing.



What is being discussed is the sense entitlement of this lady being able to have 7 children that she knows full well she cannot afford and still fully expect the state to pick up the entire tab.


It shouldnt be possible and IF it wasn't possible do you honestly think she would have still done it?

jmayo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can’t answer for you, but the reason why I don’t claim benefits is because I wouldn’t want to be on the other side of the counter to you when I’d be claiming benefits to which I am legally entitled and you’re eyeballing me like it’s coming out of your own pocket :pac:

Ultimately it is coming out of their pocket.
How many times does it have to be spelt out to you that the money spent on welfare doesn't just magically appear from nowhere.

And if welfare spending is increased, then either people's taxes are increased or the money is diverted from other areas.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...
More to the point however is the fact that nobody is taking advantage of anything if they are simply claiming something to which they are legally entitled to claim for. You can’t blame individuals for claiming something which they are legally entitled to claim for. You would have a point if they were fraudulently claiming for something to which they are not entitled, but even people in employment are entitled to claim for financial assistance for various reasons from the State, so this idea that someone in employment wouldn’t receive as much in financial assistance from the State as someone who is unemployed, well there are reasons for that.

The number one reason of course is that they simply aren’t entitled to claim for payments to which they are not entitled. That would be fraud, and there has been no evidence of fraud in this particular case, so everyone appears to be getting their knickers in a bunch and venting their frustration at the wrong target. The individual in this particular case, or the individuals you refer to, aren’t taking advantage, and the main reason I can think you bother is because you wouldn’t want to be anything like them in their circumstances.

You really don’t have a legitimate grievance about anyone else’s circumstances if you’re only picking and choosing the bits that suit you. It makes you no different than someone who is claiming that they should have a house because they see everyone else has a house, completely ignoring the fact that people are entitled to own or rent property of their choosing when they’re paying for it.

And here you have it folks, the keyword entitled.

What about someone going out of their way to put themselves into a position where they become entitled to even more handouts ?

Is that not anyway reprehensible to someone like you ?


Ah but shure I guess you reckon the magic money tree is there to provide the money and not the taxpayers. :rolleyes:

deco nate wrote: »

Some people don't feel shame, just entitlement.

And therein lies the problem

Please see above for example of same.
It is all about entitlement.

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Shame for some would be not claiming all their entitlements/freebies.

Again see above.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

jmayo

tom1ie wrote: »

I know this post is from a few pages back but I’m gonna try and explain something to this poster who doesn’t seem to grasp where the money comes from for the welfare system.

I pay tax. 1 million other people in this country who work pay tax. Now all this tax money goes into a pot and is mixed together in that pot with other revenue, eg property tax, v.a.t, commercial rates etc etc, it’s quite a long list.
Now the money to fund the welfare system comes from this pot of tax that I and 1 million others have contributed to.
So if we extrapolate this I have enabled ms cash to go out and buy her crystal, cars, and boxes of beer by my working 6 days a week and getting 50% of my earnings taken off me to fund that general taxation pot, that welfare is funded from.
Do you think I should be happy with this situation?
I have no problem supporting people who are in genuine need of help, however this is not a genuine case she is laughing at all the tax payers in this country, and the likes of you, the enablers, are as bad if not worse for this country.

Forget it, you are flogging a dead horse there.

The poster either refuses to acknowledge those simple basic economic facts or believes in some mythical system, much like those that believe there is the system, usually in Dublin and that's it's against them, should be ignored or taken for a ride.

Either way the poster is a huge part of the problem because they see absolutely nothing wrong with what this woman and others are doing.

c.p.w.g.w

Melendez wrote: »

Might I refer the honourable gentleman to post 3101.

Post numbers don't appear on touch site

PlaneSpeeking

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

There in line's the problem. Doing a costing for raising a child before you have 1,2 or maybe 7.

My sister had her second nor so long a go but before deciding weather to try for a second herself and her husband worked out everything down to the last cent. To see how they could cover day care, cost of putting them both through school etc

Responsible adults

Very. And sadly how it goes now, I'd say there are lot of families who would love more kids but just cannot afford them - yet the have a stable home and would raise good people.

I'd guess when it's not money that you've earned and you know another kid will get more rather than cost more, it's easier for the likes of Ms Cash and her ilk.

VinLieger

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you are admitting this women is not a responsible adult and knowingly had more children than she knew she could afford because she knew the state would ultimately be paying for them and not her and her husband?

suicide_circus

tom1ie wrote: »

No. But if you apply that argument to future ms cashs we won’t ever break this welfare vicious circle.
Giving another increase to the dole, without applying certain limitations such as reducing Payements over time, for long term unemployed is crazy. All it does is promote a welfare state.
Surely you can see that.

of course it promotes the welfare state, that is in fact the goal. bureaucracies are self sustaining. they don't pursue policies that reduce their size. more government means less autonomous citizens. less personal responsibility means more government interference in your day to day life. this stuff is done ON PURPOSE. Ms Cash, her partner and her children are all wards of the state. they've basically been sectioned as they are incapable of looking after themselves.

c.p.w.g.w

To Melendez you keep moving to posts here...

Child care too expensive how can she afford to work.

But sure has had the kids now, she can't put them back.

Both red herrings

Anyone who is annoyed at this situation is annoyed because Cash put no thought into her affordable to have 1 or 7 kids.

You can say child care is too expensive (I agree with you) but that argument has no ground here as she has never and will never work a day in her life.

maccored

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I sense a frisson of doubt there ?

Read the thread. She was given option, after option and - I believe firmly on the advice of one of the joke political parties or homeless cartel firms - to leave it as late as possible to present for housing, leaving the Garda station an option.

Not the only option - Jesus with her unearned and untaxed wedge she could get a suite at the Westin and barely break sweat.

read the thread? I'd prefer the actual facts. Afaik she was given one option at 9.30 when she was already in the copshop. Please do tell what 'option after option' she got before going to the garda station

The main point here though is that this country is full of idiots who vote for the same parties, then when housing and health go to hell they blame the people with no houses - probably in this case because they are travellers. then the same posters tell each other how brilliant they each are and more than likely go and vote in the same twits. better to blame the victims of no housing that someone like government officials who can do something about it, yes?

So anyway - what were these 'option, after option ' you mentioned? Why dont they just take over paying the rent from the inner city housing charity for the accommodation she's currently in? Surely thats the handiest solution?

PlaneSpeeking

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

To Melendez you keep moving to posts here...

Child care too expensive how can she afford to work.

But sure has had the kids now, she can't put them back.

Both red herrings

Anyone who is annoyed at this situation is annoyed because Cash put no thought into her affordable to have 1 or 7 kids.

You can say child care is too expensive (I agree with you) but that argument has no ground here as she has never and will never work a day in her life.

2 year olds and above get free childcare in the UK if you are on certain benefits.

https://www.gov.uk/help-with-childcare-costs/free-childcare-2-year-olds

God help us if that ever comes in here!

maccored

VinLieger wrote: »

But why should the state be responsible for picking up the tab on the decisions you have made to have more children than you can afford?

maybe we should take a leaf out of chinas book and limit kids? Right wing much?