If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Never Happen Here: UK Government launches crackdown on 120,000 problem families who blame everyone but themselves   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 54
    More: Spiffy, New Labour, Eric Pickles, Troubled Families Team, anti-social behaviour, UK government, truancy, West Side Story, Caught on Camera  
•       •       •

4058 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jun 2012 at 3:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-10 01:49:51 PM
i.dailymail.co.uk

At least our President looks at woman's butts. Your PM is too damn rude staring at someone's tits
 
2012-06-10 02:04:09 PM
What no British version of Rev. Jackson to remind us about the greatness of generational welfare.
 
2012-06-10 02:04:52 PM
FTFA: Tomorrow he will announced that England's 152 councils will be encouraged to take part in a new £450million scheme to confront problem families in their area's.

.... Their area's what?
 
2012-06-10 02:13:07 PM
Personal responsibility is too hard.
 
2012-06-10 02:15:25 PM
Got as far as "Eric Pickles", couldn't take anything seriously after that.
 
2012-06-10 03:25:32 PM
How is it that the UK is simultaneously the Republican target of being a Nanny State, yet is also a better place than us for cracking down on waste?
 
2012-06-10 03:33:24 PM
www.blogcdn.com

I'd love it if this b*tch was taken down a notch or two.
 
2012-06-10 03:37:07 PM
What would the red states have to whine about?
 
2012-06-10 03:41:54 PM

GAT_00: How is it that the UK is simultaneously the Republican target of being a Nanny State, yet is also a better place than us for cracking down on waste?


Because they are trying? Which is more that we are doing.

How is that big crackdown on the $500b in medicare fraud that was promised as part of 0bamacare coming along?
 
2012-06-10 03:46:56 PM

2wolves: What would the red states have to whine about?


Libs?
 
2012-06-10 03:53:28 PM
Yes, those 120,000 families were the ones who decided that Britain was going to tank its own economy by bailing out backs and slashing government expenditures on everything else. Rihihihihihight.

/Rich and poor alike, something something, sleep under bridges...
 
2012-06-10 04:03:30 PM
It would never happen here because we are a Christian nation who does everything it can to help the poor. Like Jesus would have wanted. Not like those Godless europeans with all their Muslims and whatnot.
 
2012-06-10 04:04:04 PM

Zagloba: Yes, those 120,000 families were the ones who decided that Britain was going to tank its own economy by bailing out backs and slashing government expenditures on everything else. Rihihihihihight.

/Rich and poor alike, something something, sleep under bridges...


Who you callin' a Wetback?
 
2012-06-10 04:08:25 PM
"If socialists mean that under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the State should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions, we will, of course, agree. This is done now; we desire that it be done better. There is however, a point on this road that must not be passed; it is the point where governmental foresight would step in to replace individual foresight and thus destroy it." - Frederic Bastiat 1848
 
2012-06-10 04:08:39 PM
I'm all for helping people who have fallen on hard times but I don't agree with sustaining those who continue to make bad decisions while on hard times.
 
2012-06-10 04:08:58 PM

AMonkey'sUncle: Who you callin' a Wetback?


D'oh!
 
2012-06-10 04:09:54 PM
The welfare program gives no incentive to get off welfare, and incentives to not try to get off welfare. They give just enough money to live hand to mouth but if you try and get a job to improve your life at all they cut you off welfare making your quality of life worst than when you where on welfare. If you just made welfare a sliding scale, so the more money you make the less welfare you get but first subtracting the extra expenses of working (Daycare, etc) and then taking money at a 2 to 1 basis people would want to get out to work. Today however if you get a job, making even close to what you did on welfare they will cut you off completely without any thought to the added expenses they have or that they have less total income. Think about it, if you could net $1200 a month for not working (Then pay rent and buy food, etc), but working you make that much minus daycare, and transport you net ~$600 a month. Which one are you going to pick? My system would mean they are getting $900 from welfare still, and $600 from work. Quality of life improved and incentives to work harder and make more money.
 
2012-06-10 04:20:15 PM

cenobyte40k: The welfare program gives no incentive to get off welfare, and incentives to not try to get off welfare. They give just enough money to live hand to mouth but if you try and get a job to improve your life at all they cut you off welfare making your quality of life worst than when you where on welfare.


Food stamps in Maine work that way. If you have a family of 3 and you make $9.99 an hour, for example, you get the full benefit. Get a $0.01 raise? Zero benefit. BAM!

It's retarded.

And, yeah, the welfare system should be designed to help wean people off of it while at the same time not screwing its recipients over.
 
2012-06-10 04:24:03 PM
Would never happen hear because it's already built into the system. We cut people off from social benefits automatically all the time. Weren't we fighting about extending unemployment benefits not all that long ago?

The cognitive dissonance, it burns.
 
2012-06-10 04:25:43 PM

xanadian: cenobyte40k: The welfare program gives no incentive to get off welfare, and incentives to not try to get off welfare. They give just enough money to live hand to mouth but if you try and get a job to improve your life at all they cut you off welfare making your quality of life worst than when you where on welfare.

Food stamps in Maine work that way. If you have a family of 3 and you make $9.99 an hour, for example, you get the full benefit. Get a $0.01 raise? Zero benefit. BAM!

It's retarded.

And, yeah, the welfare system should be designed to help wean people off of it while at the same time not screwing its recipients over.


Meanwhile, the people making $9.99 crap out another kid and they get more benefits while the person getting the $0.01 raise still doesn't get any help if they have another kid.
 
2012-06-10 04:32:12 PM

Guidette Frankentits: xanadian: cenobyte40k: The welfare program gives no incentive to get off welfare, and incentives to not try to get off welfare. They give just enough money to live hand to mouth but if you try and get a job to improve your life at all they cut you off welfare making your quality of life worst than when you where on welfare.

Food stamps in Maine work that way. If you have a family of 3 and you make $9.99 an hour, for example, you get the full benefit. Get a $0.01 raise? Zero benefit. BAM!

It's retarded.

And, yeah, the welfare system should be designed to help wean people off of it while at the same time not screwing its recipients over.

Meanwhile, the people making $9.99 crap out another kid and they get more benefits while the person getting the $0.01 raise still doesn't get any help if they have another kid.


Not necessarily. While it used to be quite common to get more benefits if you had another child, most states have put a stop to that.
 
2012-06-10 04:41:11 PM
What the fark did I just read?
 
2012-06-10 04:41:42 PM

NeverDrunk23: 2wolves: What would the red states have to whine about?

Libs?


Rich libs, specifically. With their fancy cars, and their wonderous houses without wheels.
 
2012-06-10 04:46:34 PM
FTFA "Communities Secretary Eric Pickles says 'it's not my fault culture' has allowed Britain's 120,000 worst families to cause chaos that costs the country £9billion a year."

The "it's not my fault culture" has allowed the government to cause unemployment to sky rocket, the economy to shrink back into recession ...... the list goes on.

2 years in lads, time to take some responsibility before lecturing everyone else on responsibility.
 
2012-06-10 04:47:38 PM
So the UK gov't is going to spend money to stop people from leeching off them.

Why not just cut them the fark off? You don't have to do it cold turkey, but you can start rolling back welfare expenses, especially for those who have criminal histories.
 
2012-06-10 04:50:38 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-10 05:00:32 PM

xanadian: FTFA: Tomorrow he will announced that England's 152 councils will be encouraged to take part in a new £450million scheme to confront problem families in their area's.

.... Their area's what?


Came to biatch about that sentence as well. There's a reason we call it the Daily Fail.
 
2012-06-10 05:16:39 PM
The Prime Minister David Cameron first announced in December plans for squads of 'troubleshooters' to tackle Britain's 120,000 problem families and help turn round their lives.

How does that work exactly?

Someone pulls up in a government car at 9 am knocks on the door and goes...

"Oi, Andy Capp, get a job and stop drinking, ya lousy pub crawling, brawling troublemaker!" then makes a check mark on a government form and goes off to the next problem family?

And this saves money how?

/Isn't 'Mr Pickles' the name of Stephen Colbert's cat?
 
2012-06-10 05:24:25 PM

cenobyte40k: The welfare program gives no incentive to get off welfare, and incentives to not try to get off welfare. They give just enough money to live hand to mouth but if you try and get a job to improve your life at all they cut you off welfare making your quality of life worst than when you where on welfare. If you just made welfare a sliding scale, so the more money you make the less welfare you get but first subtracting the extra expenses of working (Daycare, etc) and then taking money at a 2 to 1 basis people would want to get out to work. Today however if you get a job, making even close to what you did on welfare they will cut you off completely without any thought to the added expenses they have or that they have less total income. Think about it, if you could net $1200 a month for not working (Then pay rent and buy food, etc), but working you make that much minus daycare, and transport you net ~$600 a month. Which one are you going to pick? My system would mean they are getting $900 from welfare still, and $600 from work. Quality of life improved and incentives to work harder and make more money.


I've been saying this for years, but nobody wants to listen.

Two people in Los Angeles, living together, qualify for about $1200 in General Relief as long as both of them are NOT working or making more than a combined $500 a month. You can't even survive in LA on $1700 a month, where a studio hovel apartment will rent for around $1000. Sure, you can get food stamps; but your remaining $500 has to get everything food stamps don't pay for (hygiene products, cleaning supplies, incidentals), and transportation, and utilities, etc. Throw in a baby, and WIC has been slashed so deeply you'd be lucky to get two weeks of baby formula out of it. Clothes, furniture, household goods? I guess you're SoL.

BUT, let one of those people get a job, and that GR is cut in half, plus they lose their food stamps. Doesn't make a lick of difference if one person gets a job that pays $50K a year or $5 an hour, if they're making more than the cutoff amount, the GR goes away. So the only way people can manage on welfare is to get their payments, and take cash or under the table jobs to try to make up the difference. Which a lot of them do. None of the ones I've met is saying "it's not my fault because mommy was a single drunk mom"--mommy may well have been a drunk whore, but none of the people I've run into in Welfare offices has acknowledged this as anything more than a factor in their poverty.
 
2012-06-10 05:29:01 PM

quatchi: The Prime Minister David Cameron first announced in December plans for squads of 'troubleshooters' to tackle Britain's 120,000 problem families and help turn round their lives.

How does that work exactly?

Someone pulls up in a government car at 9 am knocks on the door and goes...

"Oi, Andy Capp, get a job and stop drinking, ya lousy pub crawling, brawling troublemaker!" then makes a check mark on a government form and goes off to the next problem family?

And this saves money how?

/Isn't 'Mr Pickles' the name of Stephen Colbert's cat?


I figure the "troubleshooter" will actually be a severe, matronly British woman who carries a rolling pin. That'll get those lazy British men away from the pub and back to work!
 
2012-06-10 05:37:49 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Not necessarily. While it used to be quite common to get more benefits if you had another child, most states have put a stop to that.


That's a good start but a place like California would never do that and just by the nature of the size of the population they can't expect to do that forever and still function the way it does today.
 
Heb
2012-06-10 05:41:10 PM
Pickles is an utter tosser

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-10 05:42:35 PM

Guidette Frankentits: Bathia_Mapes: Not necessarily. While it used to be quite common to get more benefits if you had another child, most states have put a stop to that.

That's a good start but a place like California would never do that and just by the nature of the size of the population they can't expect to do that forever and still function the way it does today.


Do you live in California? You don't get more benefits per child; at least, the sliding scale is pretty lean these days. It's not like you can have seven kids and live like a king.
 
2012-06-10 05:49:02 PM

Heb: Pickles is an utter tosser


He looks like a British Karl Rove.
 
2012-06-10 06:07:07 PM

HMS_Blinkin: I figure the "troubleshooter" will actually be a severe, matronly British woman who carries a rolling pin. That'll get those lazy British men away from the pub and back to work!


So... a cross between Supernanny and Flo Capp?

Meh, it might work.
 
2012-06-10 06:15:09 PM
UK Government launches crackdown on 120,000 problem families who blame everyone but themselves

They have Republicans in England??

i48.tinypic.com
I did not know that...
 
2012-06-10 06:22:28 PM

Zagloba: bailing out backs


My anaconda don't want none unless you got buns, hun.
 
2012-06-10 06:26:56 PM

Lernaeus: So the UK gov't is going to spend money to stop people from leeching off them.

Why not just cut them the fark off? You don't have to do it cold turkey, but you can start rolling back welfare expenses, especially for those who have criminal histories.


Because they feel that spending the money now will save them money in the future. Imprisoning these people, sendinf truancy officers, paying the health care for the people they beat up in bars isn't free.
 
2012-06-10 06:30:04 PM

smitty04: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 528x400]


Though most states are now using debit cards for food stamps and the MCC codes for liquor stores are now forbidden.
 
2012-06-10 06:35:17 PM

BSABSVR: Zagloba: bailing out backs

My anaconda don't want none unless you got buns, hun.


I'm having trouble picturing this discussion as anything but this week's SyFy Movie now...
 
2012-06-10 06:37:42 PM
Will we see the Daily Mail and the Sun lobbying against these efforts since those 120,000 families constitute at least a third of their content?
 
2012-06-10 07:34:22 PM
I bet that idea is going to go over smashingly. Literally.
 
2012-06-10 08:08:49 PM
Remember, it was the poor people with no income and no assets who ruined the economy. Punish them.
 
2012-06-10 08:17:32 PM

YodaTuna: Remember, it was the poor people with no income and no assets who ruined the economy. Punish them.


Yup. Their unfair, selfish manipulation of world markets can no longer be ignored. Jesus, some of these people even have TELEPHONES! What else do they want from us?
 
2012-06-10 08:45:09 PM
How can you say these people are poor? They've had refrigerators for a long time. . .

Link
 
2012-06-10 08:48:44 PM
Having mass suffering is a small price to pay for Roman to get his 15th yacht.
 
2012-06-10 09:00:29 PM

Gyrfalcon: cenobyte40k: The welfare program gives no incentive to get off welfare, and incentives to not try to get off welfare. They give just enough money to live hand to mouth but if you try and get a job to improve your life at all they cut you off welfare making your quality of life worst than when you where on welfare. If you just made welfare a sliding scale, so the more money you make the less welfare you get but first subtracting the extra expenses of working (Daycare, etc) and then taking money at a 2 to 1 basis people would want to get out to work. Today however if you get a job, making even close to what you did on welfare they will cut you off completely without any thought to the added expenses they have or that they have less total income. Think about it, if you could net $1200 a month for not working (Then pay rent and buy food, etc), but working you make that much minus daycare, and transport you net ~$600 a month. Which one are you going to pick? My system would mean they are getting $900 from welfare still, and $600 from work. Quality of life improved and incentives to work harder and make more money.

I've been saying this for years, but nobody wants to listen.

Two people in Los Angeles, living together, qualify for about $1200 in General Relief as long as both of them are NOT working or making more than a combined $500 a month. You can't even survive in LA on $1700 a month, where a studio hovel apartment will rent for around $1000. Sure, you can get food stamps; but your remaining $500 has to get everything food stamps don't pay for (hygiene products, cleaning supplies, incidentals), and transportation, and utilities, etc. Throw in a baby, and WIC has been slashed so deeply you'd be lucky to get two weeks of baby formula out of it. Clothes, furniture, household goods? I guess you're SoL.

BUT, let one of those people get a job, and that GR is cut in half, plus they lose their food stamps. Doesn't make a lick of difference if one person gets a job that pays $50K a year or $5 an hour, if they're making more than the cutoff amount, the GR goes away. So the only way people can manage on welfare is to get their payments, and take cash or under the table jobs to try to make up the difference. Which a lot of them do. None of the ones I've met is saying "it's not my fault because mommy was a single drunk mom"--mommy may well have been a drunk whore, but none of the people I've run into in Welfare offices has acknowledged this as anything more than a factor in their poverty.


Not arguing that there is no disincentive but those numbers don't jibe. Min wage in CA is $8/hr. If one of those people gets a full time job then their gross income is $1280/month. If you cut that GR in half to $600 and assume half of the additional $500 came from the other party then the gross for the home goes up to $2130 from $1700. Even after payroll dedutions the net would be about the same and they'd get all if the income taxes back. Also, food stamps do not get cut off for a family of 2 in CA until monthly income hits $1594.
 
2012-06-10 09:16:54 PM
the UK has a much bigger problem with misogynistic culture that despises education and celebrates criminality than even we do here in the US. the violent crime rate is in fact 4 times higher in the UK than the US.


and before the usual suspects come in here and declare that criminality is not created by culture, but is instead a function of relative income inequality, in a transparent attempt to avoid assigning any responsibility whatsoever to the perpetrators:

U.S. Gini coefficient: 41%
U.K. Gini coefficient: 36%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality


...There are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe...
By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
 
2012-06-10 09:39:41 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Meanwhile, the people making $9.99 crap out another kid and they get more benefits while the person getting the $0.01 raise still doesn't get any help if they have another kid.

Not necessarily. While it used to be quite common to get more benefits if you had another child, most states have put a stop to that.



the feds increase earned income credit (no money owed to IRS, plus cash back in april) the more children you have. however it is a downward sloping scale with progressively less additional money provided for each additional child that bottoms out to no additional monetary subsidy/incentive at child #4.

for example,
a single person who earns $15k a year instead normally owes the federal government $923 in taxes. once you can claim one child you instead get a refundable credit of $3,094 through the EITC.

that's a cash benefit of $4,017 for having your first child.
having a second child bumps the refundable credit to $5,112, so having another child after your first is essentially worth another $2,018.
when you have your third child the law of diminishing returns really kicks in.
the refundable credit only increases to $5,751, so having an additional kid after your first two is only worth and additional $639.
and 3 kids is also the demarcation where the federal government stops providing any additional cash incentive whatsoever to having additional children. from child 4 through five thousand you get no extra cash at all through the EITC at least.

to me, it seems like probably the most intelligent way to partially subsidize while avoiding incentivizing the welfare system that is imaginable. I can't say I'd change a thing.
 
2012-06-10 11:57:59 PM

Gyrfalcon: BUT, let one of those people get a job, and that GR is cut in half, plus they lose their food stamps.


It doesn't necessarily even have to be a job. Let's say you get a scholarship to take some AutoCAD courses at a community college, something you'd think the government would want to encourage. That scholarship is counted as income. There are people that literally can't afford to go to school, for free, because it will drop them from benefits they receive.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report