Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Sardine wrote: »

Other travellers are giving her stick? Over picking on refugees? Surely not!? They hate foreigners.

Supposedly now travellers are foreingners too as they now can have people be racist against them....
Bizarre really.

I'm not sure I have seen a bigger collection of idiots, fools, scroungers and layabouts as I have on her page!! :mad:


Surely an annual cull of such people would be a strong vote magnet for any party proposing it?

Judson Calm Remote wrote: »

Rather than breaking up families or driving existing children into poverty, the goal of cutting benefits would be to change the incentive for people to do what Ms. Cash has done. I assume she first got pregnant at age 16. She had 7 kids in 10 years, with no ability to support them, and now wants the taxpayer to raise and house her family in an area of her choosing. Most people can see that this is wrong.

You're right, of course, that slashing benefits would have a negative impact on existing children. So the only reasonable way to do it would be to draw a line in the sand. Children who are already born (or on the way) get one level of benefits. But the level of benefits is cut for future children, thus changing the incentives for welfare-dependent parents to keep popping out kids for taxpayers to raise.

The core problem right now is that, for a welfare-dependent family, every extra baby is an asset that adds to the family income. For a working family, an extra baby is a liability, because of the costs and the potentially reduced income from a parent staying at home or working part-time. That calculus has to change.

A study by Laya Life Insurance estimates that Irish families spend an average of around €105,000 to raise each child. For a working couple, then, buying a home and raising a family of seven children would cost well over €1 million, which is well beyond most people's means. So why should people like Ms. Cash get all this paid for free by the taxpayer?

I had considered this exact approach myself.
Generally, I am first out to ask the question "And what do you do when children are being starved and neglected because you remove/ reduce assistance payments (They are not benefits, benefits are something that accrues once one has paid in, whereas assistance is a handout where nothing has been paid in - think JSB V JSA) ?"

But!
If you change the rules in the future, that is different.

I would go further.

I would change the rules starting in 2020 or whatever, but giving enough time for a period of public awareness.
The state is well capable of mobilising resources to create a campaign - having run such campaigns around climate change, violence in the home and road safety.

The campaign would be targeted (just like all campaigns) in areas where the impact is most desired.

So in effect the strategy could be something along the lines of:

1) Set the new rates/ assistance available to people who would otherwise take advantage of a well intentioned support system

2) Set the date at which this new point comes in to effect (i.e Jan 1st 20xx)

3) Commence a campaign utilising agencies with professional experience in running such a campaign. The campaign being targeted across the entire spectrum of likely users of state assistance payments

4) Run clinics in areas of likely dependency on such models of taking advantage of the state assistance system, by offering support/ advice/ training on weaning oneself out of the idea of following in the footsteps of oither family members

5) Provide assistance to mothers of existing children availing of higher payments. Consisting of training, childcare assistance and other such supports to break the habit.

6) Any such scheme will have to take account of the fact that some people will not seek to better themselves or adjust to the new rules and so there needs to be rules and policies for dealing with people who intently put their children at risk by having them without any means and forcing them on the state through neglect.

7) Any savings to be ring-fenced for a period of 10 years exclusively to fund better better childcare, foster/ adoption agencies, education of disadvantaged women, education standards in schools, public amenities for communities.

8) First review carried out after 12 months to review the progress.

It would be a big step away from the shíthouse situation we have created at the moment. It is disgusting.

Other posters may add to the steps above to make it better for Women, Children, Society.

maynooth_rules wrote: »

So our national broadsheets are reduced to bloody click bait. Depressing. Surely the journalists read the comments and therefore get a feeling of the nation on this Sponger. Yet, apart from Niall Boylan, not one journalist has said or printed one article questioning this welfare dependant culture. Not once have I read the words 'personal responsibility' come up on this issue.

Karl deeter mentioned it when Jon Healy was standing in for pat Kenny and his wings were clipped by a combo of Healy and some other ‘worker’ who was on. Some joke.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

They weren't criticising the Catholic Church - they were shoehorning the Church into ANY reference point SO THEY CAN CRITICISE.

See the difference ?

They've a lot to answer for. When they start answering I'll stop being "edgy"

Private school bus is supplied for those living between shankill and killiney.

Kids let out as young as 3 or 4 travelling alone on 45a.

Shocking what they are let away with.

rodders999 wrote: »

This old joke keeps popping into my head for some reason -

Mary is a devout Catholic: She gets married and has 17 children.
Soon there after the last child is born her husband dies.
A few weeks later she remarries and over the following years has another 22 children with her second husband. After the last child is born her second husband also dies.
Within a month Mary is engaged to be married a third time.
Unfortunately she becomes very ill and dies.
At her wake, the priest looks tenderly at Mary as she lies in her coffin,
looks up to the heavens and says, "At least, they're finally together."
A man standing next to the priest asks, "Excuse me, Father, but do you mean
Mary and her first husband, or Mary and her second husband?"

The priest says, "I mean her legs."

Lol!