Anti-austerity protesters to march on Saturday

PEOPLE opposing the Coalition’s austerity policies will be in Swindon town centre on Saturday singing carols and asking shoppers to sign a giant Christmas card.

The words to the carols will be changed for the campaign and the super-sized card will be sent to the Prime Minister at Downing Street.

One organiser, Swindon bar manager Michael Boon, 62, said: “We will ask people to sign the card saying that many people won’t be able to afford Christmas this year due to the Government’s austerity cuts.”

By singing alternative carols they hope to get their message across on a busy shopping day.

Saturday’s demo is organised by Swindon People’s Assembly, which is affiliated to the national People’s Assembly Against Austerity, which protests against policies that “hit the poorest and most vulnerable.”

SPA member and Swindon cleaner Kate Linnegars, 52, said: “I want to stand up as someone who opposes government policies.”

A report by the New Economics Foundation said that the biggest drop in living standards since the 19th century was squeezing low and middle income earners.

The three-hour Swindon Anti-Austerity protest is one of many at shopping centres around the UK. Protesters will be in Canal Walk from 11am to 1pm. Visit peoples assemblyswindon@gmx.co.uk.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:40pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Always Grumpy says...

"Saturday’s demo is organised by Swindon People’s Assembly, which is affiliated to the national People’s Assembly Against Austerity, which protests against policies that “hit the poorest and most vulnerable.”

Ah, communists then!
"Saturday’s demo is organised by Swindon People’s Assembly, which is affiliated to the national People’s Assembly Against Austerity, which protests against policies that “hit the poorest and most vulnerable.” Ah, communists then! Always Grumpy

7:51pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Ringer says...

This is, without doubt, the most hysterical press release cobblers I've read since the last time the GMB / local Marxists told the papers they were going to do something.

Benefits have actually gone UP by 5.2% in the last 18 months and all the people I know who depend entirely on them to exist have already bought all their food, presents and booze and have taken delight in pointing that out on Facebook and the like.

'Austerity' - yeah, OK.
This is, without doubt, the most hysterical press release cobblers I've read since the last time the GMB / local Marxists told the papers they were going to do something. Benefits have actually gone UP by 5.2% in the last 18 months and all the people I know who depend entirely on them to exist have already bought all their food, presents and booze and have taken delight in pointing that out on Facebook and the like. 'Austerity' - yeah, OK. Ringer

10:42am Thu 12 Dec 13

Cob4lt says...

Well done on vomiting the most out of touch comments I've seen in a while. 

Ringer - Just some quick stats from the world outside your little Facebook friends bubble:

More than one in three households in social housing in the north of England have no money at all left at the end of each week after they have met their financial commitments. 

160,000 children living in poverty in Scotland alone. 

An estimated 4.1 million households will suffer fuel poverty this year. Having to choose between heating their homes more feeding their families. 


Household spending on food in Britain dropped by an average of 8.5 percent in real terms, for families with young children the figure is a staggering 18 percent. 

Teachers have reported an 85 percent rise in children arriving at school hungry. 

The number of people paid less than the living wage rose from 4.8 million to 5.2 million in the last year.

Always grumpy - What? Seriously, what? 
Well done on vomiting the most out of touch comments I've seen in a while.  Ringer - Just some quick stats from the world outside your little Facebook friends bubble: More than one in three households in social housing in the north of England have no money at all left at the end of each week after they have met their financial commitments.  160,000 children living in poverty in Scotland alone.  An estimated 4.1 million households will suffer fuel poverty this year. Having to choose between heating their homes more feeding their families.  Household spending on food in Britain dropped by an average of 8.5 percent in real terms, for families with young children the figure is a staggering 18 percent.  Teachers have reported an 85 percent rise in children arriving at school hungry.  The number of people paid less than the living wage rose from 4.8 million to 5.2 million in the last year. Always grumpy - What? Seriously, what?  Cob4lt

11:14am Thu 12 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Cob4lt wrote:
Well done on vomiting the most out of touch comments I've seen in a while. 

Ringer - Just some quick stats from the world outside your little Facebook friends bubble:

More than one in three households in social housing in the north of England have no money at all left at the end of each week after they have met their financial commitments. 

160,000 children living in poverty in Scotland alone. 

An estimated 4.1 million households will suffer fuel poverty this year. Having to choose between heating their homes more feeding their families. 


Household spending on food in Britain dropped by an average of 8.5 percent in real terms, for families with young children the figure is a staggering 18 percent. 

Teachers have reported an 85 percent rise in children arriving at school hungry. 

The number of people paid less than the living wage rose from 4.8 million to 5.2 million in the last year.

Always grumpy - What? Seriously, what? 
Perhaps these people should get out there and do something about it then rather than relying on handouts from others all the time?

If they couldn't afford to feed children, why did they have children?

Not too bothered about Scotland either way until they decide whether they want to be part of the Union or not. Perhaps Mr Salmond would like to explain how they intend to improve the lives of these children, and what he's going to pay for it with?

Teachers reporting children arriving at school hungry? That's colloquial at best. Where's the evidence of that? They are not malnourished, but certainly my own children would always say they were hungry too as they are eating machines. Are teachers trained to notice the difference? Probably not.

And while we're at it, most people have no money at the end of the week/month after financial commitments, not just those in tax payer subsidised housing. This is because for many people most of the money they EARN is taken away in tax each month to pay for those peoples subsidised housing and benefits.
[quote][p][bold]Cob4lt[/bold] wrote: Well done on vomiting the most out of touch comments I've seen in a while.  Ringer - Just some quick stats from the world outside your little Facebook friends bubble: More than one in three households in social housing in the north of England have no money at all left at the end of each week after they have met their financial commitments.  160,000 children living in poverty in Scotland alone.  An estimated 4.1 million households will suffer fuel poverty this year. Having to choose between heating their homes more feeding their families.  Household spending on food in Britain dropped by an average of 8.5 percent in real terms, for families with young children the figure is a staggering 18 percent.  Teachers have reported an 85 percent rise in children arriving at school hungry.  The number of people paid less than the living wage rose from 4.8 million to 5.2 million in the last year. Always grumpy - What? Seriously, what? [/p][/quote]Perhaps these people should get out there and do something about it then rather than relying on handouts from others all the time? If they couldn't afford to feed children, why did they have children? Not too bothered about Scotland either way until they decide whether they want to be part of the Union or not. Perhaps Mr Salmond would like to explain how they intend to improve the lives of these children, and what he's going to pay for it with? Teachers reporting children arriving at school hungry? That's colloquial at best. Where's the evidence of that? They are not malnourished, but certainly my own children would always say they were hungry too as they are eating machines. Are teachers trained to notice the difference? Probably not. And while we're at it, most people have no money at the end of the week/month after financial commitments, not just those in tax payer subsidised housing. This is because for many people most of the money they EARN is taken away in tax each month to pay for those peoples subsidised housing and benefits. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

11:22am Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Cob4lt wrote:
Well done on vomiting the most out of touch comments I've seen in a while. 

Ringer - Just some quick stats from the world outside your little Facebook friends bubble:

More than one in three households in social housing in the north of England have no money at all left at the end of each week after they have met their financial commitments. 

160,000 children living in poverty in Scotland alone. 

An estimated 4.1 million households will suffer fuel poverty this year. Having to choose between heating their homes more feeding their families. 


Household spending on food in Britain dropped by an average of 8.5 percent in real terms, for families with young children the figure is a staggering 18 percent. 

Teachers have reported an 85 percent rise in children arriving at school hungry. 

The number of people paid less than the living wage rose from 4.8 million to 5.2 million in the last year.

Always grumpy - What? Seriously, what? 
'Poverty' is defined as a household with an income of £17,000 pa or less.

So much for your 'poverty'.

With all the myriad benefits, tax credits, ad infinitum, there is very little - if any - real poverty in this country.

And those who supposedly have to choose between, 'Heating and eating' don't seem to have a problem affording fags, booze, mobile phones, broadband, takeaways, pets and drugs. So forgive me if I literally do not believe a word of your ridiculous propaganda.
[quote][p][bold]Cob4lt[/bold] wrote: Well done on vomiting the most out of touch comments I've seen in a while.  Ringer - Just some quick stats from the world outside your little Facebook friends bubble: More than one in three households in social housing in the north of England have no money at all left at the end of each week after they have met their financial commitments.  160,000 children living in poverty in Scotland alone.  An estimated 4.1 million households will suffer fuel poverty this year. Having to choose between heating their homes more feeding their families.  Household spending on food in Britain dropped by an average of 8.5 percent in real terms, for families with young children the figure is a staggering 18 percent.  Teachers have reported an 85 percent rise in children arriving at school hungry.  The number of people paid less than the living wage rose from 4.8 million to 5.2 million in the last year. Always grumpy - What? Seriously, what? [/p][/quote]'Poverty' is defined as a household with an income of £17,000 pa or less. So much for your 'poverty'. With all the myriad benefits, tax credits, ad infinitum, there is very little - if any - real poverty in this country. And those who supposedly have to choose between, 'Heating and eating' don't seem to have a problem affording fags, booze, mobile phones, broadband, takeaways, pets and drugs. So forgive me if I literally do not believe a word of your ridiculous propaganda. Ringer

1:27pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Cob4lt says...

Let's not talk about propaganda, when you both just seem to be spouting the 'scroungers' stereotypes propagated from the likes of The Sun and The Daily Mail. 

But looking at the facts and statistics, it's plain to see that these things simply aren't true. 

And looking at the reality of this, you seem to be suggesting that people are actually 'choosing' to be poor, or it is otherwise their own fault anyway.


But you both seem to have completely omitted the actual cause of the crisis; reckless global banking strategies(or lack thereof). 

You both seem to have nothing to say about this last stat- 

"The number of people paid less than the living wage rose from 4.8 million to 5.2 million in the last year."


A massive portion of the people in poverty are workers, many working for companies that don't even bother to pay tax. 


You missed these out because your arguments don't address these, because the previously mentioned publishers of those arguments work for and are themselves some of the richest people in the country. 


Now if we're facing a crises of money, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to target the people at the top who are fiddling us out of billions of pounds of tax (while paying our workers sod all), rather than attempting to blame the poorest people in the country
Let's not talk about propaganda, when you both just seem to be spouting the 'scroungers' stereotypes propagated from the likes of The Sun and The Daily Mail.  But looking at the facts and statistics, it's plain to see that these things simply aren't true.  And looking at the reality of this, you seem to be suggesting that people are actually 'choosing' to be poor, or it is otherwise their own fault anyway. But you both seem to have completely omitted the actual cause of the crisis; reckless global banking strategies(or lack thereof).  You both seem to have nothing to say about this last stat-  "The number of people paid less than the living wage rose from 4.8 million to 5.2 million in the last year." A massive portion of the people in poverty are workers, many working for companies that don't even bother to pay tax.  You missed these out because your arguments don't address these, because the previously mentioned publishers of those arguments work for and are themselves some of the richest people in the country.  Now if we're facing a crises of money, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to target the people at the top who are fiddling us out of billions of pounds of tax (while paying our workers sod all), rather than attempting to blame the poorest people in the country Cob4lt

2:26pm Thu 12 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Cob4lt wrote:
Let's not talk about propaganda, when you both just seem to be spouting the 'scroungers' stereotypes propagated from the likes of The Sun and The Daily Mail. 

But looking at the facts and statistics, it's plain to see that these things simply aren't true. 

And looking at the reality of this, you seem to be suggesting that people are actually 'choosing' to be poor, or it is otherwise their own fault anyway.


But you both seem to have completely omitted the actual cause of the crisis; reckless global banking strategies(or lack thereof). 

You both seem to have nothing to say about this last stat- 

"The number of people paid less than the living wage rose from 4.8 million to 5.2 million in the last year."


A massive portion of the people in poverty are workers, many working for companies that don't even bother to pay tax. 


You missed these out because your arguments don't address these, because the previously mentioned publishers of those arguments work for and are themselves some of the richest people in the country. 


Now if we're facing a crises of money, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to target the people at the top who are fiddling us out of billions of pounds of tax (while paying our workers sod all), rather than attempting to blame the poorest people in the country
"Let's not talk about propaganda" - and then spouts a whole bunch of propaganda, lol :)

I've never once said "scroungers". I'm not saying they're choosing to be poor, I'm saying that for whatever reasons many are choosing to not go out and and better themselves.

The root 'cause' of the crash is debatable. The only thing that isn't in doubt is that more money was spent by a very large number of people (not just the banks) than could ever be paid back. It is not the banks fault that large numbers of people did not work hard at school to give themselves an education, or did subjects of questionable purpose at university because they were easier.

Many people on less than the "living wage" may indeed be workers. And? Not everyone can be equal and some will always be at the bottom of the tree. That's unavoidable as some jobs are simply worth more than others. I often hear things like "race to the bottom", yet that's exactly what many people want from money for high-earners. We should be encouraging those on low pay to be aspirational, improve themselves and see if they can match those high earners, not trying to pull down those that people on low pay are jealous of. You cannot run an economy on envy.

As for companies not "bothering" paying tax - I presume you're now going to complain about Amazon, Google, etc etc with the same tired arguments despite the fact that their tax practices are completely within UK law. If you don't like the law, I'd agree with you. It should be changed.
[quote][p][bold]Cob4lt[/bold] wrote: Let's not talk about propaganda, when you both just seem to be spouting the 'scroungers' stereotypes propagated from the likes of The Sun and The Daily Mail.  But looking at the facts and statistics, it's plain to see that these things simply aren't true.  And looking at the reality of this, you seem to be suggesting that people are actually 'choosing' to be poor, or it is otherwise their own fault anyway. But you both seem to have completely omitted the actual cause of the crisis; reckless global banking strategies(or lack thereof).  You both seem to have nothing to say about this last stat-  "The number of people paid less than the living wage rose from 4.8 million to 5.2 million in the last year." A massive portion of the people in poverty are workers, many working for companies that don't even bother to pay tax.  You missed these out because your arguments don't address these, because the previously mentioned publishers of those arguments work for and are themselves some of the richest people in the country.  Now if we're facing a crises of money, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to target the people at the top who are fiddling us out of billions of pounds of tax (while paying our workers sod all), rather than attempting to blame the poorest people in the country[/p][/quote]"Let's not talk about propaganda" - and then spouts a whole bunch of propaganda, lol :) I've never once said "scroungers". I'm not saying they're choosing to be poor, I'm saying that for whatever reasons many are choosing to not go out and and better themselves. The root 'cause' of the crash is debatable. The only thing that isn't in doubt is that more money was spent by a very large number of people (not just the banks) than could ever be paid back. It is not the banks fault that large numbers of people did not work hard at school to give themselves an education, or did subjects of questionable purpose at university because they were easier. Many people on less than the "living wage" may indeed be workers. And? Not everyone can be equal and some will always be at the bottom of the tree. That's unavoidable as some jobs are simply worth more than others. I often hear things like "race to the bottom", yet that's exactly what many people want from money for high-earners. We should be encouraging those on low pay to be aspirational, improve themselves and see if they can match those high earners, not trying to pull down those that people on low pay are jealous of. You cannot run an economy on envy. As for companies not "bothering" paying tax - I presume you're now going to complain about Amazon, Google, etc etc with the same tired arguments despite the fact that their tax practices are completely within UK law. If you don't like the law, I'd agree with you. It should be changed. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

11:21am Fri 13 Dec 13

AnotherRespondent says...

Sorry - just saw this and had to jump in. Your arguments are mostly illogical. If there are always some that are going to be at the bottom of the tree, what's the point of encouraging them to be aspirational? It's not going to get them anywhere. There's a pyramid structure in place - the opportunities necessarily get fewer as you progress up the food chain. It could be argued that the aspirational urge is what brought us to the banking crisis in the first place - aspiration is just envy with a makeover. You can't base an economy on envy? We did. All debt is aspirational, people wanting something they haven't got.

The problem with this government, and people like yourself, is that you assume that unemployment is a lack of demand for jobs, that the unemployed or (or, increasingly, underemployed) are just lacking aspiration or simply don't want to work, being happily cossetted in their lives of luxury by a benevolent nany state that asks for nothing in return. The truth is unemployment is a lack of SUPPLY of jobs. They're just not there. And while Workfare is providing employers with free labour, there is precious little incentive to create them.

I am a qualified accountant. I agree with you that any company will follow the economic imperative to maximise efficiency and get the most bang for their buck. Tax reduction strategies are a part of this. It IS an outrage that so much of the legally owed taxes are not being paid, which amount to far more than social security. I think it was the Economist that said tax in Britain is increasingly becoming a voluntary activity, given the staffing cuts. So you must see that getting staff for free is a strategy that deters actual job creation. What's the point of hiring people if you the job centre are giving them away? As you say, they're probably just the jobs that aren't worth very much anyway, the sort of job that can be done by anyone. If these people had actual jobs, they'd have actual income that could be spent in shops and improve the economy. It's called the multiplier effect. Lots of people having no money is a bad thing for an economy that depends on its growth to survive.

My degree was in actuarial mathematics and statistics, so not especially easy. I was headhunted internationally twice. I worked for 20 years as an IT consultant. Now I am an ESA statistic. I'm too old to train apparenty (not me saying that, the job centre). People don't like recruiting juniors who were once more senior than them. Apparently I might want their job (again, from the job centre). I'm 'over-qualified'.

Yes, that's just my story. And maybe I'm an exception. But the funny thing is, so is everybody else. The 'poor', 'unemployed', 'disabled' or whatever else are not one amorphous mass of homogeneity and it is just not possible to justify some of the sweeping statements I've seen on this post.
Sorry - just saw this and had to jump in. Your arguments are mostly illogical. If there are always some that are going to be at the bottom of the tree, what's the point of encouraging them to be aspirational? It's not going to get them anywhere. There's a pyramid structure in place - the opportunities necessarily get fewer as you progress up the food chain. It could be argued that the aspirational urge is what brought us to the banking crisis in the first place - aspiration is just envy with a makeover. You can't base an economy on envy? We did. All debt is aspirational, people wanting something they haven't got. The problem with this government, and people like yourself, is that you assume that unemployment is a lack of demand for jobs, that the unemployed or (or, increasingly, underemployed) are just lacking aspiration or simply don't want to work, being happily cossetted in their lives of luxury by a benevolent nany state that asks for nothing in return. The truth is unemployment is a lack of SUPPLY of jobs. They're just not there. And while Workfare is providing employers with free labour, there is precious little incentive to create them. I am a qualified accountant. I agree with you that any company will follow the economic imperative to maximise efficiency and get the most bang for their buck. Tax reduction strategies are a part of this. It IS an outrage that so much of the legally owed taxes are not being paid, which amount to far more than social security. I think it was the Economist that said tax in Britain is increasingly becoming a voluntary activity, given the staffing cuts. So you must see that getting staff for free is a strategy that deters actual job creation. What's the point of hiring people if you the job centre are giving them away? As you say, they're probably just the jobs that aren't worth very much anyway, the sort of job that can be done by anyone. If these people had actual jobs, they'd have actual income that could be spent in shops and improve the economy. It's called the multiplier effect. Lots of people having no money is a bad thing for an economy that depends on its growth to survive. My degree was in actuarial mathematics and statistics, so not especially easy. I was headhunted internationally twice. I worked for 20 years as an IT consultant. Now I am an ESA statistic. I'm too old to train apparenty (not me saying that, the job centre). People don't like recruiting juniors who were once more senior than them. Apparently I might want their job (again, from the job centre). I'm 'over-qualified'. Yes, that's just my story. And maybe I'm an exception. But the funny thing is, so is everybody else. The 'poor', 'unemployed', 'disabled' or whatever else are not one amorphous mass of homogeneity and it is just not possible to justify some of the sweeping statements I've seen on this post. AnotherRespondent

12:36pm Mon 16 Dec 13

the usually mr tolerant says...

They could have been out helping the homeless or something more constructive with their time.
They could have been out helping the homeless or something more constructive with their time. the usually mr tolerant

1:11pm Mon 16 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

AnotherRespondent wrote:
Sorry - just saw this and had to jump in. Your arguments are mostly illogical. If there are always some that are going to be at the bottom of the tree, what's the point of encouraging them to be aspirational? It's not going to get them anywhere. There's a pyramid structure in place - the opportunities necessarily get fewer as you progress up the food chain. It could be argued that the aspirational urge is what brought us to the banking crisis in the first place - aspiration is just envy with a makeover. You can't base an economy on envy? We did. All debt is aspirational, people wanting something they haven't got.

The problem with this government, and people like yourself, is that you assume that unemployment is a lack of demand for jobs, that the unemployed or (or, increasingly, underemployed) are just lacking aspiration or simply don't want to work, being happily cossetted in their lives of luxury by a benevolent nany state that asks for nothing in return. The truth is unemployment is a lack of SUPPLY of jobs. They're just not there. And while Workfare is providing employers with free labour, there is precious little incentive to create them.

I am a qualified accountant. I agree with you that any company will follow the economic imperative to maximise efficiency and get the most bang for their buck. Tax reduction strategies are a part of this. It IS an outrage that so much of the legally owed taxes are not being paid, which amount to far more than social security. I think it was the Economist that said tax in Britain is increasingly becoming a voluntary activity, given the staffing cuts. So you must see that getting staff for free is a strategy that deters actual job creation. What's the point of hiring people if you the job centre are giving them away? As you say, they're probably just the jobs that aren't worth very much anyway, the sort of job that can be done by anyone. If these people had actual jobs, they'd have actual income that could be spent in shops and improve the economy. It's called the multiplier effect. Lots of people having no money is a bad thing for an economy that depends on its growth to survive.

My degree was in actuarial mathematics and statistics, so not especially easy. I was headhunted internationally twice. I worked for 20 years as an IT consultant. Now I am an ESA statistic. I'm too old to train apparenty (not me saying that, the job centre). People don't like recruiting juniors who were once more senior than them. Apparently I might want their job (again, from the job centre). I'm 'over-qualified'.

Yes, that's just my story. And maybe I'm an exception. But the funny thing is, so is everybody else. The 'poor', 'unemployed', 'disabled' or whatever else are not one amorphous mass of homogeneity and it is just not possible to justify some of the sweeping statements I've seen on this post.
An accountant that doesn't know how a budget deficit works?

By consigning people at the lower end of the pay scale to a lifetime of mediocrity by forcing them into a lack of aspiration and a lifetime of benefits is to write them off completely.

Aspiration and envy are two different things. Aspiration is "I want what you've got". Envy is "I don't have what you've got so you shouldn't have it".
[quote][p][bold]AnotherRespondent[/bold] wrote: Sorry - just saw this and had to jump in. Your arguments are mostly illogical. If there are always some that are going to be at the bottom of the tree, what's the point of encouraging them to be aspirational? It's not going to get them anywhere. There's a pyramid structure in place - the opportunities necessarily get fewer as you progress up the food chain. It could be argued that the aspirational urge is what brought us to the banking crisis in the first place - aspiration is just envy with a makeover. You can't base an economy on envy? We did. All debt is aspirational, people wanting something they haven't got. The problem with this government, and people like yourself, is that you assume that unemployment is a lack of demand for jobs, that the unemployed or (or, increasingly, underemployed) are just lacking aspiration or simply don't want to work, being happily cossetted in their lives of luxury by a benevolent nany state that asks for nothing in return. The truth is unemployment is a lack of SUPPLY of jobs. They're just not there. And while Workfare is providing employers with free labour, there is precious little incentive to create them. I am a qualified accountant. I agree with you that any company will follow the economic imperative to maximise efficiency and get the most bang for their buck. Tax reduction strategies are a part of this. It IS an outrage that so much of the legally owed taxes are not being paid, which amount to far more than social security. I think it was the Economist that said tax in Britain is increasingly becoming a voluntary activity, given the staffing cuts. So you must see that getting staff for free is a strategy that deters actual job creation. What's the point of hiring people if you the job centre are giving them away? As you say, they're probably just the jobs that aren't worth very much anyway, the sort of job that can be done by anyone. If these people had actual jobs, they'd have actual income that could be spent in shops and improve the economy. It's called the multiplier effect. Lots of people having no money is a bad thing for an economy that depends on its growth to survive. My degree was in actuarial mathematics and statistics, so not especially easy. I was headhunted internationally twice. I worked for 20 years as an IT consultant. Now I am an ESA statistic. I'm too old to train apparenty (not me saying that, the job centre). People don't like recruiting juniors who were once more senior than them. Apparently I might want their job (again, from the job centre). I'm 'over-qualified'. Yes, that's just my story. And maybe I'm an exception. But the funny thing is, so is everybody else. The 'poor', 'unemployed', 'disabled' or whatever else are not one amorphous mass of homogeneity and it is just not possible to justify some of the sweeping statements I've seen on this post.[/p][/quote]An accountant that doesn't know how a budget deficit works? By consigning people at the lower end of the pay scale to a lifetime of mediocrity by forcing them into a lack of aspiration and a lifetime of benefits is to write them off completely. Aspiration and envy are two different things. Aspiration is "I want what you've got". Envy is "I don't have what you've got so you shouldn't have it". The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree