Moving From Benefits To Work Incredibly Difficult.

[dalek]

Posted Yesterday, 02:19 PM

Signing on SHOULD be at least as much work as a full time job.

You don't think we have enough to do filling in endless application forms for jobs - after spending hours searching for them, preparing for interviews and attending them?

I'm also learning - via internet - all the ins and outs of Excel, power point, Microsoft office, etc so I can apply for more admin jobs. My lack of experience in such jobs won't help, but I'm going to give it my best.

Sadly, the Daily Mail Readers on here mean any debate soon starts plumbing new depths. It's pitiful. Never mind the autistic weirdoes (you know who you are) who are unable to access any human empathy. (Shudder).

[Game_Over]

Ha ha. Daily Mail Readers will be the first to be targeted once the politicians and bankers are dealt with, believe me.

The Big State Social Welfare model is dead

What will follow could be one of two extremes

and the left wing alternative was tested to destruction in the 20th Century

[dalek]

tell me more..

Not Tony Blair!

[Injin]

The Big State Social Welfare model is dead

What will follow could be one of two extremes

and the left wing alternative was tested to destruction in the 20th Century

The vast, vast majority of the population want an NHS, welfare etc mixed economy model.

So what will happen is that people who are owed the money will be told to ****** off, and then the system will be put back the way it was.

There is zero chance of the economy going towards some neo con "market" system without productivity vanishing entirely. It's what right whingers don't get - the welfare system is in place because that's what the population broadly wants to happen. Destroy the welfare state using debt and political tricks and it'll just get rebuilt, in the same way you can't get rid of religion by burning down a temple. The believers will just rebuild it.

[Game_Over]

The vast, vast majority of the population want an NHS, welfare etc mixed economy model.

So what will happen is that people who are owed the money will be told to ****** off, and then the system will be put back the way it was.

There is zero chance of the economy going towards some neo con "market" system without productivity vanishing entirely. It's what right whingers don't get - the welfare system is in place because that's what the population broadly wants to happen. Destroy the welfare state using debt and political tricks and it'll just get rebuilt, in the same way you can't get rid of religion by burning down a temple. The believers will just rebuild it.

Everyone wants free stuff and no one wants to pay the bill

This is just human nature in action.

And your analysis of the benefits and outcome of defaulting are not borne out by reality.

Any country can default but they then have no choice but to run A BALANCED BUDGET.

and this inevitably means huge cuts in state spending.

This is why countries like Greece don't want to default.

[Injin]

Everyone wants free stuff and no one wants to pay the bill

This is just human nature in action.

And your analysis of the benefits and outcome of defaulting are not borne out by reality.

Any country can default but they then have no choice but to run A BALANCED BUDGET.

and this inevitably means huge cuts in state spending.

This is why countries like Greece don't want to default.

Simply not true. Many people are actually happy to pay their fair share in order to have a welfare state, it's just that the system has been gamed by a cross section of psychopaths, conmen etc, which is why it is collapsing. It'ds a very different collapse to the soviet one. (And this is me saying this, free market loony that I am.)

The reasons the budgets don't balance is due to massive fraud from banks and credit bubbles caused by banks.

There is easily enough money to pay for a welfare state even more generous than the one we have now IF the state wasn't groaning under the weight of trying to make a trillion quids worth of outright fraud somehow work out ok.

[Game_Over]

Simply not true. Many people are actually happy to pay their fair share in order to have a welfare state, it's just that the system has been gamed by a cross section of psychopaths, conmen etc, which is why it is collapsing. It'ds a very different collapse to the soviet one. (And this is me saying this, free market loony that I am.)

The reasons the budgets don't balance is due to massive fraud from banks and credit bubbles caused by banks.

There is easily enough money to pay for a welfare state even more generous than the one we have now IF the state wasn't groaning under the weight of trying to make a trillion quids worth of outright fraud somehow work out ok.

So how come every Socialist state in the 20th Century ended up murdering millions of their own citizens before collapsing?????

You of all people should know that you can't create wealth by printing money

so all the money being printed which is going straight to fund government deficit spending is just stealing real wealth from somewhere else.

The model is broken and the US will realise this first and return to its founding principles.

Europe on the other hand has been in terminal decline for decades.

[Injin]

So how come every Socialist state in the 20th Century ended up murdering millions of their own citizens before collapsing?????

Because of the lack of price signals. But ofc, this isn't relevent because the west hasn't seen any socialism, certainly no socialist states for at least 40 years.

You of all people should know that you can't create wealth by printing money

so all the money being printed which is going straight to fund government deficit spending is just stealing real wealth from somewhere else.

The model is broken and the US will realise this first and return to its founding principles.

Europe on the other hand has been in terminal decline for decades.

For some reason you think that if you freed people they'd go to some market based economic dog eat dog system, when I seriously doubt they would. I think it'd be welfare, hospitals, infrastructure up the ying yang, if you let people decide where to put their money. Every time power is equalised in a society this is what happens......example - soldiers return from WW2, all armed to the teeth and able to kill, and miraculously there is cash for hospitals, housing, roads, rail etc and jobs for everyone who wants one.

[dalek]

Everyone wants free stuff and no one wants to pay the bill

This is just human nature in action.

And your analysis of the benefits and outcome of defaulting are not borne out by reality.

Any country can default but they then have no choice but to run A BALANCED BUDGET.

and this inevitably means huge cuts in state spending.

This is why countries like Greece don't want to default.

But we do all pay the bill! We pay for the NHS and Welfare State - a safety net for all of us, as anyone can lose their job at some time in their life - through our taxes! It isn't free. God, I despair.

But what's happening now - as I feel the need to educate you - is that £132 billion of taxpayers' money has gone straight to the banks. Failed banks, that should have been allowed, in a so-called free market, to go bust. We gave £25 billion to Northern Crock alone. So that its chief exec Applegarth could retire with a £2.7 million pension pot.

And that is why there is no money left any more, as there normally would be, for things that benefit the population at large - such as the NHS and Welfare State, schools, etc.

But no, you'll prefer to just swallow everything Paul Dacre spews at you.

Edited to take out 'you moron!'....

Edited July 27, 2012 by dalek

[PopGun]

Because of the lack of price signals. But ofc, this isn't relevent because the west hasn't seen any socialism, certainly no socialist states for at least 40 years.

+ 100

BendGame Over's surname is McCarthy, and I claim my 5 bit coins...

[PopGun]

I am angry because the ruling elite have f*cked a once great country up for the next 20 years at least.

In fact the damage done here in the last 15 years or so is probably now irreversible.

Thanks for once again demonstrating to everyone exactly why you simply don't and never will get it.

[Game_Over]

Thanks for once again demonstrating to everyone exactly why you simply don't and never will get it.

This is all very well,

but ever since I have been posting here everyone has been telling me I know nothing and am a moron

and yet everything I expected would happen, has happened

and everything everyone told me would happen has not.

Strange isn't it............

[sleepwello'nights]

But what's happening now - as I feel the need to educate you - is that £132 billion of taxpayers' money has gone straight to the banks. Failed banks, that should have been allowed, in a so-called free market, to go bust.

Can you explain what would have happened if the banks had been allowed to go bust? Its not a wind up I wonder if there is anything in such a scenario that would help me understand how it would benefit the general population.

Wouldn't they just reappear with the same assets under a different name and possibly ownership, with a lower capital base. To all intents and purposes the same entities.

[gf3]

Can you explain what would have happened if the banks had been allowed to go bust? Its not a wind up I wonder if there is anything in such a scenario that would help me understand how it would benefit the general population.

Wouldn't they just reappear with the same assets under a different name and possibly ownership, with a lower capital base. To all intents and purposes the same entities.

I think so.

and when they started to interview people to work in the new banks it would be the same people being employed because they have the experience.

[the shaping machine]

£132 billion of taxpayers' money has gone straight to the banks.

I see this kind of thing repeated on HPC but no one ever provides any links to back up these factoids. My impression is that most of the money "given to banks" was in the form of guarantees and IOUs, and anyway isn't included in the national debt stats.

Does anyone actually have any real information or links on this?

[dalek]

Can you explain what would have happened if the banks had been allowed to go bust? Its not a wind up I wonder if there is anything in such a scenario that would help me understand how it would benefit the general population.

Wouldn't they just reappear with the same assets under a different name and possibly ownership, with a lower capital base. To all intents and purposes the same entities.

With pleasure. A handful of bust and crooked banks - Northern Crock, RBS, LloydsTSB/HBOS - are allowed to fail. The government gives the depositors of those banks their money - a drop in the ocean compared to what was eventually handed to the banks.

The saving of all those billions would have benefited the general population immensely - no austerity, no cuts, no job losses.

A bust bank could not have reappeared. I would have added another consequence - that the heads of those banks left with no handouts, and banned from ever running a financial institution or indeed any company again. And, for some of them, jail.

[dalek]

This is all very well,

but ever since I have been posting here everyone has been telling me I know nothing and am a moron

and yet everything I expected would happen, has happened

and everything everyone told me would happen has not.

Strange isn't it............

You may well have seen what was coming, as did many of us here. The tragedy is you don't know why...

[dalek]

I see this kind of thing repeated on HPC but no one ever provides any links to back up these factoids. My impression is that most of the money "given to banks" was in the form of guarantees and IOUs, and anyway isn't included in the national debt stats.

Does anyone actually have any real information or links on this?

I don't post these figures without being able to back them up. As you are too lazy to find the information yourself, having preferred for all these years to remain in blissful ignorance, try this (from the National Audit Office itself):

http://www.nao.org.uk/banking_faq.aspx

'Our most recent estimate of the outstanding support is set out in the C&AG’s Report on HM Treasury’s 2011-12 Resource Accounts.

Total outstanding support as at 31 March 2012 (£bn)

Guarantee commitments £109.17

Cash outlay £118.86

Total support £228.03 (billion)

Furthermore, the Treasury retains the unquantifiable ultimate risk of supporting banks should they threaten the stability of the overall financial system again.'

And:

'The £132.89 billion cash provided has been reduced by £14.03 billion because:

banks and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme had made cumulative net repayments of £13.28 billion as at 31 March 2012; and

the £1.4 billion shares in Northern Rock plc were sold to Virgin Money at the end of 2011. The Treasury has received a total of £747 million cash to date with further proceeds expected.'

Edited July 28, 2012 by dalek

[erat_forte]

I see this kind of thing repeated on HPC but no one ever provides any links to back up these factoids. My impression is that most of the money "given to banks" was in the form of guarantees and IOUs, and anyway isn't included in the national debt stats.

Does anyone actually have any real information or links on this?

Oh, well that's OK then!

[bmf]

I don't post these figures without being able to back them up. As you are too lazy to find the information yourself, having preferred for all these years to remain in blissful ignorance, try this (from the National Audit Office itself):

http://www.nao.org.uk/banking_faq.aspx

'Our most recent estimate of the outstanding support is set out in the C&AG’s Report on HM Treasury’s 2011-12 Resource Accounts.

Total outstanding support as at 31 March 2012 (£bn)

Guarantee commitments £109.17

Cash outlay £118.86

Total support £228.03 (billion)

Furthermore, the Treasury retains the unquantifiable ultimate risk of supporting banks should they threaten the stability of the overall financial system again.'

And:

'The £132.89 billion cash provided has been reduced by £14.03 billion because:

banks and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme had made cumulative net repayments of £13.28 billion as at 31 March 2012; and

the £1.4 billion shares in Northern Rock plc were sold to Virgin Money at the end of 2011. The Treasury has received a total of £747 million cash to date with further proceeds expected.'

to the OP:

In any case who cares if it's in the national debt stats? All notes are "a promise to pay" hence an IOU/guarantee is hardly free.

How do you think all the hundreds of thousands of people in Canary Wharf, who all work for banks that would be bust, buy their groceries? How can it possibly be a "free" bailout?

[dalek]

to the OP:

In any case who cares if it's in the national debt stats? All notes are "a promise to pay" hence an IOU/guarantee is hardly free.

How do you think all the hundreds of thousands of people in Canary Wharf, who all work for banks that would be bust, buy their groceries? How can it possibly be a "free" bailout?

?

(translation anyone?)

[porca misèria]

£71 is plenty to keep someone going until they find work.

Tough going if you have to pay rent from it.

[dalek]

Tough going if you have to pay rent from it.

No, you don't. But you do have to use it for everything else, including food, other groceries, gas, electric, water for the week. And that's tough enough.

And you can cancel your TV licence, phone, broadband, buildings and contents insurance...

Edited July 28, 2012 by dalek

[the shaping machine]

I don't post these figures without being able to back them up. As you are too lazy to find the information yourself, having preferred for all these years to remain in blissful ignorance, try this (from the National Audit Office itself):

It's neither lazy or ignorant to expect people to base their claims on the truth.

You said: "£132 billion of taxpayers' money has gone straight to the banks...And that is why there is no money left any more, as there normally would be, for things that benefit the population at large - such as the NHS and Welfare State, schools, etc."

If the state support for the banks (with which I disagree BTW) isn't taken from the current account, then it has no effect on the ability to finance other areas. Your linkage was therefore false.

[the shaping machine]

Oh, well that's OK then!

It's not OK, but it doesn't mean that for every pound that went to Northern Rock a pound less goes to the NHS.