Because the people who are paid with the money taken from others vote.  They will always vote to continue to get anothers money.  If that base can be increased the politicians can always secure a group that will vote for them.  Thus it is in the best interest of both politicians and leech to come together to deprive others of the fruit of their labor.

This is one of the problems with a democratic process: When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul never complains.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner.  Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

---

Why:

Because the people who are paid with the money taken from others vote. They will always vote to continue to get anothers money. If that base can be increased the politicians can always secure a group that will vote for them. Thus it is in the best interest of both politicians and leech to come together to deprive others of the fruit of their labor.

This is one of the problems with a democratic process: When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul never complains.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

---

You'll find that most people in their situations don't vote. Otherwise the BNP would hold more seats than they currently do.

-------

Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?

---

Quote: from Elm at 4:14 pm on July 10, 2009

---

Why:  

 Because the people who are paid with the money taken from others vote.  They will always vote to continue to get anothers money.  If that base can be increased the politicians can always secure a group that will vote for them.  Thus it is in the best interest of both politicians and leech to come together to deprive others of the fruit of their labor.  

 This is one of the problems with a democratic process: When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul never complains.  

 "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner.  Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

---

You'll find that most people in their situations don't vote. Otherwise the BNP would hold more seats than they currently do.

---

Same here.  They are usually content to not vote if their free systems are not threatened the rare ones that do will vote for those who keep them in comfort.

However attempt to remove those handouts and see the voting system that will self-mobilize to preserve its funding.

Off to jog - be back.

---

Quote: from ElephantStone at 8:21 am on July 10, 2009

---

Quote: from Elm at 4:14 pm on July 10, 2009

---

Why:

  Because the people who are paid with the money taken from others vote. They will always vote to continue to get anothers money. If that base can be increased the politicians can always secure a group that will vote for them. Thus it is in the best interest of both politicians and leech to come together to deprive others of the fruit of their labor.

  This is one of the problems with a democratic process: When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul never complains.

  "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

---

 

 You'll find that most people in their situations don't vote. Otherwise the BNP would hold more seats than they currently do.

---

Same here. They are usually content to not vote if their free systems are not threatened the rare ones that do will vote for those who keep them in comfort.

However attempt to remove those handouts and see the voting system that will self-mobilize to preserve its funding.

Off to jog - be back.

---

I think you've missed my point....its that they should work famine roads for their handouts. Not that they're left in deep water. The government just alters its policy.

-------

Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?

---

Quote: from Elm at 4:24 pm on July 10, 2009

---

Quote: from ElephantStone at 8:21 am on July 10, 2009

---

Quote: from Elm at 4:14 pm on July 10, 2009

---

Why:    

  Because the people who are paid with the money taken from others vote.  They will always vote to continue to get anothers money.  If that base can be increased the politicians can always secure a group that will vote for them.  Thus it is in the best interest of both politicians and leech to come together to deprive others of the fruit of their labor.    

  This is one of the problems with a democratic process: When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul never complains.    

  "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner.  Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

---

  You'll find that most people in their situations don't vote. Otherwise the BNP would hold more seats than they currently do.

---

 

 Same here.  They are usually content to not vote if their free systems are not threatened the rare ones that do will vote for those who keep them in comfort.  

 However attempt to remove those handouts and see the voting system that will self-mobilize to preserve its funding.  

 Off to jog - be back.

---

I think you've missed my point....its that they should work famine roads for their handouts. Not that they're left in deep water. The government just alters its policy.

---

That was tried in NYC for a bit.  The opponents argued that because the people had to show up during certain hours and certain days of the week that it prevented them from looking for better paying jobs and made them defacto near slaves of the state.

With the current economic crisis, it's extremely hard to find a job and it isn't as easy as "they should be put on some kind of work".  Our government provides cheap education at a tertiary level for those on the Dole, to further their education resulting in more job opportunities.  But even with that, it's still incredibly hard to find a job.

They aren't earning money for nothing, the government is providing them with money to live.  It's humane, and if they didn't do it there would be an overwhelming backlash.

---

Australia is the same.  We put the unemployed on the Dole as well.  The Dole is purely there to sustain job seekers.  Meaning, those who can't find employment are paid to stay alive.  We all need money to live, and not giving them any money is worse than what they're doing right now.  It's a job seeker's allowance.  I'm pretty sure if you're on the Dole you must be looking for a job, unless you have certain things prohibiting you from doing so (children under 5 years old etc).  Social Security checks in with you to make sure you're looking for work, and if you aren't they threaten to take you off the Dole.

With the current economic crisis, it's extremely hard to find a job and it isn't as easy as "they should be put on some kind of work". Our government provides cheap education at a tertiary level for those on the Dole, to further their education resulting in more job opportunities. But even with that, it's still incredibly hard to find a job.

They aren't earning money for nothing, the government is providing them with money to live. It's humane, and if they didn't do it there would be an overwhelming backlash.

---

Are you fucking retarded?

My pioint was not that we shouldn't pay them, but that they do famine roads. It doesn't have to be all fucking day long, but so long as they do something and don't stay at home all their time.

-------

Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?

My point was that the whole idea of the Dole is that the unemployed are encouraged to look for work. The Dole sets you up with interviews and the money aspect of it is only there to pay for their living expenses.

Why set them up in a dead in job doing something trivial all day, when the Dole is essentially encouraging them to get out there and find a job. If they sit at home all day and do jack shit, then Social Security threatens to take it away.

There will always be one or two that bludge off the system, but that's unavoidable. I see no need to really change the current system at all.  I'd rather people get money from the government while looking for work, than setting them up in a dead end, pointless, trivial job.

---

The US is the same. I don't have a problem with people who are physically or mentally unable to work, by all means let's help them. But the able bodied, no. Why should my tax money go to pay them for doing nothing but breeding. Most of the welfare recipients here have a TV, car, cable, internet, cell phone etc. Why? Welfare was meant to be a short term support system to help someone get back on their feet, it has become a way of life for 3 or 4 generations. They are taught in school that the government will take care of their every need.

---

I dont wanna change the subject, BUT what about our homeless here in the U.S.???

you people remember that tsunami back on X-mas week back in '05 I think it was - it was in the Thailand area out there -- the U.S. sent aid to them like there was no tomorrow.
YET, we have the homeless issue here in the states.
I WILL SAY IT UNTIL THE SAY I DIE - I will not help out others overseas UNTIL we help out our homeless.

the fucking politics here in the states pisses the F out of me.

-------
[If you don't like me, too bad]
"The amount of fail on THEFORUM.COM is reaching epic proportions." - hughnon