egafd.com

"I think there is an obvious difference between the unemployed and 'scroungers'.

Indeed there is, Einstein, but the card is aimed at all the unemployed whether they are deemed "scroungers" or not, so your comment about scroungers

"but scroungers don't get off their arse and vote so they are looking after those who do. Makes sense"

is nonsensical because not all unemployed are scroungers, but yet if implemented all the unemployed would get one of these cards.

I will leave you to troll off somewhere else.

This seems to hold true in a number of scenarios. If 80% of the problems are caused by 20% of claimants then shouldn't resources be directed at that 20% ?

Isn't Duncan Smith proposing using a sledgehammer to crack a nut ? That doesn't seem very bright to me.

I just read the article. It's funny how someone like him, who takes vast amounts of taxpayers cash himself, is critical of those who also take a small amount themselves. I worked as a Civil Servant for years in a main Government department, a stone's throw from Parliament Square, for nearly a decade, and trust me when I say that politicians and senior public officials do not give a damn about public money. They see the Exchequer as their own private piggy-bank. The more senior they are the more so.

If a Benefits receiver spends some money on fags or beer then it's their own look out because they'll have less to spend on other things and are likely to be skint most of the time. If this happens they'll be less inclined to continue drinking and smoking. One thing I do agree with is gambling, I don't think people on Benefit should be able to do that with public money - if it's something tangaible for themself - like food, clothes, beer, fags, a magazine, a DVD, etc, that's ok. If it's gambled it's just money thrown away. That I think is wrong for people to spend money on. I don't know how they'll ever stop people doing it though.

why get upset about this ?

if your unemployed and not working then if you recieve money from another source then they have the right to dictate to you what you spend it on...

I pay taxes and if this was used to fund someone elses smoking drinking or gambling habits then id be pissed off royally.

since when was these defined as essential living needs ? Nah ! right on bring in the cards and ensure that those scroungers cant spend a penny on nothing but the essentials, get back to work you lazy arses and start to earn the right to squander money on the pleasures of life !

you aint squandering mine on your self centered lazy fat arses while im toiling earning.......

tongue firmly in cheek.

Or indeed all the Tories who fiddled their expenses. I seem to recall it wasnt just a Labour MP activity.

makes me laugh all this hard up stuff pay no rent, no coucil tax, all their bills paid, chavy kids looked after
but for me THEE biggest one couldnt care so much about the fags and booze with a bit of luck might kill em off
No its how do they afford a car ??, and why do they want one
Must be getting too much cash from govt benefits
should be a rule on benefits No car end of
Obvs getting paid too much
And they are the reason the countrys in a state and theyve brought all these scummy eastern europeans in, who dont interrate at all

They get a car through mobility..... or else working on the black market.

Hate em all !

A person doesn't agree with you and you label them a 'Troll'.
What an absolute tosser you are.

David Johnson wrote:

> Or indeed all the Tories who fiddled their expenses. I seem to
> recall it wasnt just a Labour MP activity.

And not forgetting the LibDems who also had their hand in the till.

One solution might be to drastically reduce the number of politicians on the public payroll, Representing me I have an MP, an MEP, a London Assembly Member and three local councillors (and before any clever dick points out there is one local councillor per ward, I know that but I still have three votes ? I don't get to vote for neighbouring constituencies in a General Election) ? what in God's name do they all do?