egafd.com

...you should know by now that the Five-minute Argument only involves
the automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person says.

Either pay for the 10-minute one, or go next door for the Being Hit Over
the Head. It'll be much more rational and satisfying.

jj wrote:

> ...you should know by now that the Five-minute Argument only
> involves the automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person says.

Which does eventually lead to some stupid posts!

> Either pay for the 10-minute one, or go next door for the Being
> Hit Over the Head. It'll be much more rational and satisfying.

If I did I'd need to hold Sir Wazzakins hand - that's what he told me anyway.

Or I can wait until young Hans von Trumpton goes back to Nuremberg for his rally. Elitism, hatred of an underclass, refusal to see anything... all so familiar.

Perhaps I should just leave this forum to the BNP brigade that look upon it as their spiritual home. Keep promising myself I won't argue politics with blinkered bigots, and never keep the pledge.

Time 2 leev the kiddie's to there owen devizes.

?I worked my way up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty.?

Groucho Marx

Some good points from all sides on this thread.

I do feel, that in modern Britain, no one should be living in poverty (this we can all agree on at least).

Personally, the welfare system is a good thing, and throwing more money at unemployed people will benefit some in a positive way, yet cause others to abuse the system even more.

Basically, poverty in Britain is both 'self inflicted' for some, and real hardship and bad luck in others. Both Trumpton/steve56's and Wazza/Carac's sides are correct because there's no single reason for.......say a child, to grow up in poverty.

Some will be frustrated at a pensioner living off ?110 a week, and who complains they can't pay a heating bill, and yet some couples on a low income aren't earning much more, yet haven't the transport, tax, licence benefits the pensioner has. The pensioner sees the couple as having more money 'coming in' and so complains, while the working couple sees the pensioner with less expenses, and more help, and so too complain.

In real terms, a single mother with 2 children, living off benefits in 2007, is financially better off than a single mother who's husband was killed in the war, bringing up 2 kids alone during the early 50's, and worked in a local factory. The 50's family are worse off, but complained less.

The main reason is due to modern amenities and lifestyle changes........along with TV. If you had nothing in the 50's or 60's, neither did any of your friends. Also, no one had many personal possessions or toys. Today, the gap between the have's & have-not's is greater, possessions and toys are taken for granted more, and constant TV advertising only highlights everything you 'haven't got yet'.

Though -literally- a poverty line family has more cash, and access to food these days, they're made to feel much much more inadequate for the things they cannot do/have. On a psychological level, a low income/unemployed family are a lot poorer, and unhappy today, than in the past. People made to feel that bad about themselves leads to anger, frustration, and hopelessness. Spending money on a healthy diet and taking your kids to a museum, rather than down the pub, or on weed, seems a waste of time. They feel inadequate and will start to mimic other people who feel inadequate. If poor parents spend what little money they have on drugs and alcohol to escape their own feelings of inadequacy, then they'll seek out others in the same position. A granny-robbing heroin addict feels a lot happier around other granny-robbing heroin addicts than a group of shop assistants, or plumbers, or medical students. Birds of a feather flock together, and the reason these unemployed parents are spending their benefits on the wrong things is because other people of their ilk are doing the same. It's something they and their friends 'can' afford, and not feel inadequate about.

So, my personal feelings of poverty -in Britain at least- is that a majority do infact make their own situation worse for themselves and their children, but social pressures and mass advertising add to the problems of 'fitting in'.

Self inflicted poverty doesn't necessarily mean the poverty stricken have only themselves to blame. Advertising is a powerful thing, and if something tells you 56 times a day that you MUST have the latest mobile phone to be accepted, and you see you're peers with new mobile phones, one day you yourself will conclude that social opinions on mobile phones, and the advertiser's insistences are right.

I don't know if this has been studied, but I'd hazard a guess that any child found living in poverty, has a mentally sick parent, or a parent with definite feelings of inadequacy, low self esteem, or depression, and that in reality, their financial incomings isn't the biggest direct cause.

Eminently sensible and reasonable stuff.
Thanks for bringing some much-needed light and calm analysis to the
debate

[quote]Perhaps I should just leave this forum to the BNP brigade that look upon it as their spiritual home.[/quote]

Don't you dare! !wink!

Cheers !thumbsup!

I'm standing in for Wazza while he's away!

I just found myself agreeing with both sides on this topic, in varying degrees. They're both right, yet Trumpy seems a little too rash in pointing the finger.

It's one thing to know facts, but quite another to understand.

Sam Slater wrote:

> I'm standing in for Wazza while he's away!

Then you'll need a little more pomposity and self-regard, and some
leather elbow-patches and a pronounced stoop [pronounced 'stoop'*] [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/teacher.gif[/img] [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/grin.gif[/img]


[*Copyright: S Milligan, 1944]

Thank you for putting so eloqently. Best and simple way to explain poor and poverty. Betcha he still won't get it! !pleased!