Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 12:59 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Xenophobia?
#31
RE: Xenophobia?
In reality, I feel the need to post this video, yet again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4
Reply
#32
RE: Xenophobia?
(February 22, 2013 at 12:00 pm)Vera Wrote:
(February 22, 2013 at 11:54 am)Tiberius Wrote: The Sun is a piece of crap.

Well, you just shattered everything that was good and innocent in me. Dodgy

Hahaha, I laugh at the idea of you having any innocence left. Tongue

That is all I have to add to this thread, because I just don't care if people come here from elsewhere. I don't really care for society anyway. Wink
Cunt
Reply
#33
RE: Xenophobia?
(February 22, 2013 at 2:39 pm)frankiej Wrote: Hahaha, I laugh at the idea of you having any innocence left. Tongue

That is all I have to add to this thread, because I just don't care if people come here from elsewhere. I don't really care for society anyway. Wink

Shush, frankie, that's privileged information [Image: shh.gif]
But the eternal dilemma - how can we be happy amid the unhappiness of others?
Reply
#34
RE: Xenophobia?
(February 22, 2013 at 11:06 am)Tiberius Wrote: Factually untrue. The estimated value of overpayments due to fraud and error in 2011/2012 was £3.4 billion.

Source: http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/in...raud_error

That figure does not cover people claiming on the NHS.

yes............ 2.1% is what i call ALMOST NONE especially since it INCLUDES ERROR................. besides cutting welfare won't decrease that percentage you will still be wasting or "giving away" 2.1%


Quote:1) I never said that our government makes decisions based on headlines / tabloid stories. Nor did I say I made my decision based on such stories. The only reason I mentioned it was because Rhythm said that welfare queens did not exist in his country. In our country, the existence of welfare queens is well known and documented in various media outlets.

pointing out one story that's probably overhyped and based off 3 seconds of dialogue is tabloid bullshit, same bullshit that made cancelling welfare popular in America, the term welfare queens was popularized by reagan who lied about women with cadillacs and 16 welfare checks......... did it matter if those people actually existed of course not, because being a conservative politician is all about being the biggest dick

Quote:2) As you can see from the source above, the government does its own research into benefit fraud. Policy is based on that research.

the government also prevents fraud and giving more money to these programs is the best way to prevent fraud, cutting wlefare is a blatant attampt at disenfrachinsing the poor, and using cowardly empty rhetoric to make the gullible (you) into agreeing with these ridiculous polcies

Quote:3) This is not about whether immigrants contribute more to a country's economy than its actual average citizen. This is about jobs being given to immigrants over actual citizens. This is always going to be a problem when the system is set up so that anyone in the EU can legally work anywhere in the EU. The people who live in less wealthy countries are going to move to more wealthy countries to find work, which takes jobs from the people who already live in those wealthy countries (and who are citizens of them).

well the people in your country who can't find work are just parasites anyway Angel Cloud
Reply
#35
RE: Xenophobia?
(February 22, 2013 at 12:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Which brings us back round to why it would be dishonest or what have you to exploit (another loaded choice of words) a service that you have claim to as a citizen. Seems to me, that in the case of a person having children (ostensibly for the purpose of being moved up to better accommodations- not sure how we'd make a charge like that stick btw, and it's not really how it works here anyway) has to be pretty honest about at least how many children they have.
In my opinion, it is dishonest (and fraudulent) if you either:

1) Are not entitled to the benefit, but try to obtain it or keep it.
2) Actively change your situation so you are worse off, in order to claim more in benefits.

Now, the instances of (2) are probably low, but the number of cases we hear about concerning (1) benefit fraud is very high. Usually it is people who received disability benefits because they were unable to work due to an injury, but continue to claim the benefit after they are healed and able to work again.

In the child case, it's not people lying about the number of children they have, but purposefully having more children in order to gain the additional child benefits. Like I said though, the instances of this are probably low.

Quote:Without our little brood Miss and I wouldn't qualify for a dime. With 4 we qualify for a few more dimes (but the tax breaks are where it really shows). We didn't have our kids to get an increase in benefits, but every kid we had increased them nevertheless. Whats to stop someone inclined to do so from claiming that we had our children to game the system? Suppose the person making that claim was the issuing body (of our benefits). How are we to defend ourselves against a charge of intent, and how are they to make their case in the first place?
Well, luckily for our modern society we operate on "innocent until proven guilty", so you don't have to do anything to defend yourselves if you are innocent; the prosecution won't be able to demonstrate anything that a jury could accept as "beyond reasonable doubt".

I should point out though, that even if prosecuting people for this is near impossible, it is still fundamentally dishonest and fraudulent if they do it.

Quote:In light of this what exactly, can you, Tibs, say about welfare queens that I wouldn't immediately dismiss, as Apo above, as ideology?
I'm not sure I understand the question. I understand that in your country, welfare queens might be a myth from the Reagan era. However, in any welfare system which is as badly mismanaged as ours, welfare queens are a real thing, and sadly, an inevitability.

A few moments on Google will find reputable media sources talking about them:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010...ange-99ers
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comm...131444.ece

I'm not making a comment on welfare queens in the US, only in the UK...because I live in the UK and I know more about the state of affairs here than in the US.

(February 22, 2013 at 8:28 pm)cratehorus Wrote: yes............ 2.1% is what i call ALMOST NONE especially since it INCLUDES ERROR................. besides cutting welfare won't decrease that percentage you will still be wasting or "giving away" 2.1%
Cutting welfare may well reduce that percentage, given that it would limit the requirements needed for people to legitimately claim welfare.

Besides, did you not read the line after I posted the stat: "That figure does not cover people claiming on the NHS." 2.1% might be a small number, but the NHS may well be abused far more than that.


Quote:pointing out one story that's probably overhyped and based off 3 seconds of dialogue is tabloid bullshit, same bullshit that made cancelling welfare popular in America, the term welfare queens was popularized by reagan who lied about women with cadillacs and 16 welfare checks......... did it matter if those people actually existed of course not, because being a conservative politician is all about being the biggest dick
Can you give any evidence for the "probably overhyped" claim? Or the 3 seconds of dialogue claim? No. These people are being interviewed in newspapers; they actively brag about how much they are getting. That is the only reason this issue is being talked about over here.

Quote:the government also prevents fraud and giving more money to these programs is the best way to prevent fraud, cutting wlefare is a blatant attampt at disenfrachinsing the poor, and using cowardly empty rhetoric to make the gullible (you) into agreeing with these ridiculous polcies
Cutting welfare for those who do not need it is not an attempt at disenfranchising the poor. It is in fact, completely the opposite. Less money for welfare cheats means more money for people who actually require it.

Quote:well the people in your country who can't find work are just parasites anyway Angel Cloud
No, they are victims of a system which is acting against their interests.
Reply
#36
RE: Xenophobia?
(February 23, 2013 at 9:18 pm)Tiberius Wrote: In my opinion, it is dishonest (and fraudulent) if you either:

1) Are not entitled to the benefit, but try to obtain it or keep it.
2) Actively change your situation so you are worse off, in order to claim more in benefits.

Now, the instances of (2) are probably low, but the number of cases we hear about concerning (1) benefit fraud is very high. Usually it is people who received disability benefits because they were unable to work due to an injury, but continue to claim the benefit after they are healed and able to work again.

In the child case, it's not people lying about the number of children they have, but purposefully having more children in order to gain the additional child benefits. Like I said though, the instances of this are probably low.

I'm on-board with you, being that neither of us imagine that people are popping out kids left and right to get higher benefits one has to ask - are immigrants (for example, being the initial group in question) a majority of the demonstrated cases of benefit fraud via dodgy disability checks? You need a SS number to claim disability here btw.

Quote:Well, luckily for our modern society we operate on "innocent until proven guilty", so you don't have to do anything to defend yourselves if you are innocent; the prosecution won't be able to demonstrate anything that a jury could accept as "beyond reasonable doubt".

I should point out though, that even if prosecuting people for this is near impossible, it is still fundamentally dishonest and fraudulent if they do it.
Right, but unfortunately (at least in the case of the US) benefits don't work exactly like a court or legal system. They can be revoked or suspended for a wide variety of questionable this and that's(it's not a right or anything) - and while you could (and I'd say should) hammer them to reinstate said benefits...that won't really help you in the interim. This is the gov we're talking about, "the interim" could be a very, very long time. They also aren't interested or responsible if you lose what little you had left in said interim due to their foot dragging.

But I suppose it isn't much of a problem, because neither of us expects to find too many cases of this yeah?

Quote:I'm not sure I understand the question. I understand that in your country, welfare queens might be a myth from the Reagan era. However, in any welfare system which is as badly mismanaged as ours, welfare queens are a real thing, and sadly, an inevitability.

A few moments on Google will find reputable media sources talking about them:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010...ange-99ers
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comm...131444.ece

I'm not making a comment on welfare queens in the US, only in the UK...because I live in the UK and I know more about the state of affairs here than in the US.
I see two articles about a grand total of two families Tibs, who may or may not actually be doing anything illegal (don't see anything about a conviction or revocation of benefits). I'm not sure if I'm ready to cry epidemic or anything even remotely close on that count. I get that you think it's dishonest or unfair (and I'm not exactly disagreeing with you here - but precedent is precedent- and We should be careful with precedent). How many people in your country are currently claiming some kind of benefits? Would we expect any system handing out resources to be crime free in any case? Why even continue the use of a term manufactured as a fairy tale if criminal, or fraud works just as well and is all you're talking about anyway?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#37
RE: Xenophobia?
(February 23, 2013 at 10:52 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm on-board with you, being that neither of us imagine that people are popping out kids left and right to get higher benefits one has to ask - are immigrants (for example, being the initial group in question) a majority of the demonstrated cases of benefit fraud via dodgy disability checks? You need a SS number to claim disability here btw.
No, as the article alluded to, the concern involves the NHS, which has less checks involved. The conversation has gotten side-tracked onto the more general problems in welfare. The original article (and my original comment) was about immigrants taking advantage of our already overburdened "free healthcare" system, which is paid for by taxpayers, and used by anyone. The government wants to restrict access so only citizens and tax-paying immigrants can use the NHS for free; others would have to pay.

Quote:Right, but unfortunately (at least in the case of the US) benefits don't work exactly like a court or legal system. They can be revoked or suspended for a wide variety of questionable this and that's(it's not a right or anything) - and while you could (and I'd say should) hammer them to reinstate said benefits...that won't really help you in the interim. This is the gov we're talking about, "the interim" could be a very, very long time. They also aren't interested or responsible if you lose what little you had left in said interim due to their foot dragging.

But I suppose it isn't much of a problem, because neither of us expects to find too many cases of this yeah?
Exactly; I don't expect to find many cases, and if one was suspected, I'm not even sure there would be a fair way to go about determining guilt (unless of course we find a "baby-making manifesto" under their bed. Tongue)

Quote: I see two articles about a grand total of two families Tibs, who may or may not actually be doing anything illegal (don't see anything about a conviction or revocation of benefits). I'm not sure if I'm ready to cry epidemic or anything even remotely close on that count. I get that you think it's dishonest or unfair (and I'm not exactly disagreeing with you here - but precedent is precedent- and We should be careful with precedent). How many people in your country are currently claiming some kind of benefits? Would we expect any system handing out resources to be crime free in any case? Why even continue the use of a term manufactured as a fairy tale if criminal, or fraud works just as well and is all you're talking about anyway?
Did I cry epidemic? No. I simply said they were a problem. You said they were a problem in the US but you couldn't find any. I can (at least) find references to some actual families.

Look, I'm aware you don't like the word "welfare queen" because it is associated in America with lying about welfare cheats. That's fine; over here it's not. I didn't even realise it was invented by you guys in the Reagan era before this conversation. I only use it because that is the term we use over here; it's what the papers use, it's what people use.

I've also already explained the difference I see between simple benefit cheats and welfare queens. It's scale. Just as there is a difference between a pickpocket and a career criminal burglar.
Reply
#38
RE: Xenophobia?
(February 23, 2013 at 9:18 pm)Tiberius Wrote: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comm...131444.ece
34,000 per year in a 3 bedroom house for a single WORKING (which disqualifies her automatically as a "welfare queen") mom with 10 children is not unreasonable in fact just the opposite she is the one being taken avantage of

Quote:Cutting welfare may well reduce that percentage, given that it would limit the requirements needed for people to legitimately claim welfare.

Besides, did you not read the line after I posted the stat: "That figure does not cover people claiming on the NHS." 2.1% might be a small number, but the NHS may well be abused far more than that.
nominally it's possible, but it's aso possible that a lack of welfare funding would result in less manpower to detect fraud, blind cuts as you would have them do is more likely to increase that percentage
............a universal healthcare system reduces costs, these people would still seek treatment for emergency care and would simply not pay their bill by giving a fake identification, those costs would be passed on to you either through insurance or through an increased hospital bill


Quote:Can you give any evidence for the "probably overhyped" claim? Or the 3 seconds of dialogue claim? No. These people are being interviewed in newspapers; they actively brag about how much they are getting. That is the only reason this issue is being talked about over here.
this is what a welfare queen is since you seem to think it means anything based on your high and mighty judgement that would be considered too much welfare is automotically a welfare queen

Conservative politicians have a talent for telling memorable anecdotes that capture the essence of their beliefs on any particular issue. One of the most enduring of these came from Ronald Reagan on the subject of welfare. He cited a Chicago "Welfare Queen" who had ripped off $150,000 from the government, using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards, and four fictional dead husbands. The country was outraged; Reagan dutifully promised to roll back welfare; and ever since, the "Welfare Queen" driving her "Welfare Cadillac" has become permanently lodged in American political folklore.

Unfortunately, like most great conservative anecdotes, it wasn't really true. The media searched for this welfare cheat in the hopes of interviewing her, and discovered that she didn't even exist.



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen

As we know reagan used this to cut benefits to the poor specifically in the inner cities targeting minorities in otherwords xenophobia/racism


Quote:Cutting welfare for those who do not need it is not an attempt at disenfranchising the poor. It is in fact, completely the opposite. Less money for welfare cheats means more money for people who actually require it.
the same system your proposing should be cut.......... is the system that monitors fraud, and who exactly is the person who decides "who does not need it"....... you?


Quote:No, they are victims of a system which is acting against their interests.

so are the immigrants and people on welfare, many people are still alive fromthe days of racial segregation, the KKK still infiltrates police stations to abuse local minorities, your country currently occupies scotland wales and northern ireland, these people are victims, the englishman with a good paying job and every oppotunity in the world with a tax bill he "doesn't enjoy" is not a victim
Reply
#39
RE: Xenophobia?
(February 24, 2013 at 7:56 am)Tiberius Wrote: No, as the article alluded to, the concern involves the NHS, which has less checks involved. The conversation has gotten side-tracked onto the more general problems in welfare. The original article (and my original comment) was about immigrants taking advantage of our already overburdened "free healthcare" system, which is paid for by taxpayers, and used by anyone. The government wants to restrict access so only citizens and tax-paying immigrants can use the NHS for free; others would have to pay.
Sounds reasonable, outliers like rattlesnake bites aside. I know you guys don't have rattlesnakes but we could just replace that with some other life threatening crisis.

Quote:Exactly; I don't expect to find many cases, and if one was suspected, I'm not even sure there would be a fair way to go about determining guilt (unless of course we find a "baby-making manifesto" under their bed. Tongue)
LOL, now -that- would make for a good news day.

Quote:Did I cry epidemic? No. I simply said they were a problem. You said they were a problem in the US but you couldn't find any. I can (at least) find references to some actual families.

Look, I'm aware you don't like the word "welfare queen" because it is associated in America with lying about welfare cheats. That's fine; over here it's not. I didn't even realise it was invented by you guys in the Reagan era before this conversation. I only use it because that is the term we use over here; it's what the papers use, it's what people use.

I've also already explained the difference I see between simple benefit cheats and welfare queens. It's scale. Just as there is a difference between a pickpocket and a career criminal burglar.

Maybe I cant view the entirety of the contents of the link...but I didn't see any mention of that manifesto we might want to find under their beds. Honestly, those two links are of the same quality and tone as any of the articles we had here in the states about our own phantom welfare queens. It was a wildly successful narrative, people actually had to argue against the existence of something no one had ever taken the time to establish as existent in the first place - and people still rattle on about them anyway...btw-. In light of that it's unsurprising that the term and mythos seems to have found new life in a new market. Now you mentioned above that welfare queens and fraud are somehow different - but given your doubts about how guilt for the one could even be established just how much sense does it make to change a policy to solve the "problem" - and from where has your opinion on this been drawn, clearly not from welfare queens who have been found guilty as charged? I think you should stick to railing against fraud and let the welfare queen thing die the death it deserved when it was exposed for what it was the first time.

Tibs, it's the same thing over there that it was over here, until you find those manifestos.

I did see, by the way, a suggestion in those links that one might imagine would be a good idea - an idea difficult to object to at first glance. The idea of limiting benefits to two children. Trouble is, this amounts to targeted population control/manipulation of the impoverished. If they wont stop fucking like we tell them too we'll starve them into submission. Not that I think it couldn't work, maybe we can make poverty vanish by helping the impoverished to vanish. What I found to be the most puzzling about that article and it;s suggestion was that the writer chose to open the peice with the statement

"It is extremely rare to identify a simple solution to a complex social problem."

Yeah, seems so, but it doesn't seem as though the writer actually had that in mind when offering the solution.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  My theory on all this recent Xenophobia NuclearEnergy 27 5768 June 8, 2017 at 12:22 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  A groundbreaking campaign against Xenophobia abaris 0 584 August 27, 2016 at 12:19 pm
Last Post: abaris



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)