[Football] Marcus Rashford

[Green Cross Code Man]

I have given a thumbs up for the respect and love for Rashford who is simply outstanding as a person. But the politics, unnecessary.

 

[dingodan]

I don't want to be horrible to you, because sometimes people just get the wrong end of the stick. But I think you're post shows you don't understand some of the principles involved here.

I do understand the basic principles involved here.

There is nothing noble about demanding things from other people.

Nobody's life improves when they become accustomed to depending on the state.

I genuinely don't find this kind of thing to be generous or kind.

If you have more than you need, which you might, then there are places and people who are organized to help others, and if you can afford it, it would be noble to voluntarily give what you can. Perhaps you know a family in your local community who is struggling and need help. Help them.

But don't demand things of others and try to claim moral superiority because you did.

I am a very big admirer of charitable giving and the people who do it. I'm not such a fan of "charitable taking" though.

EDIT: Looking at the suggested policy, I'm not particularly against the idea. I just don't agree a) that it's always a good thing when the state gives things to people, and b) it's noble or kind hearted to argue that they should, or c) it's evil and selfish to argue that they shouldn't.

My post is more in disagreement with the attitude of the OP about all this, rather than the policy itself. I doubt it would break the bank, it's for people who qualify for support anyway, and times are really hard. For what it's worth if it were up to me I wouldn't oppose this. I find the way this discussion is framed to be very disagreeable though.

 

[Simster]

I have given a thumbs up for the respect and love for Rashford who is simply outstanding as a person. But the politics, unnecessary.

Politics, unnecessary?

You'll be a Tory then. Someone who voted this shower in, but doesn't want to acknowledge the truth about them.

 

[yxee]

I suppose you could ask why aren't existing child benefits covering their meals?

 

[blue-shifted]

You can't see why this government might reflect on people's feelings about their nationality? Really? So to give an extreme example, you don't look at Haiti, for example, and think "tin pot corrupt country"?

This government embarrasses us on an international stage. They are corrupt, they are liars and they are so useless that they are probably the worst government we will ever see. And to make matters worse, they were elected with a massive majority which suggests our countrymen were too moronic to see this coming. So yes, the state of our country embarrasses me.

Yes, clearly the government represents the national to the wider world as well as reflects the character of the people who live in it.

When I was a young man you wouldn't have met someone as proud to be English as me. Now I'm ashamed

 

[stewart12]

I suppose you could ask why aren't existing child benefits covering their meals?

children don't necessarily have a say in how that money is spent

as for the parents- there is rent, bills, clothing- many of whom will have to pick and choose which things got paid and which didn't. In many cases money which should go on food is going on rent (to, you know, keep a roof over their head).

all of that is irrelevant- it's the kids that the government is punishing here, not the parents. Parents are bad with money? Cool, let the kids go hungry, that'll show 'em!

 

[blue-shifted]

I do understand the basic principles involved here.

There is nothing noble about demanding things from other people.

Nobody's life improves when they become accustomed to depending on the state.

I genuinely don't find this kind of thing to be generous or kind.

If you have more than you need, which you might, then there are places and people who are organized to help others, and if you can afford it, it would be noble to voluntarily give what you can. Perhaps you know a family in your local community who is struggling and need help. Help them.

But don't demand things of others and try to claim moral superiority because you did.

I am a very big admirer of charitable giving and the people who do it. I'm not such a fan of "charitable taking" though.

EDIT: Looking at the suggested policy, I'm not particularly against the idea. I just don't agree a) that it's always a good thing when the state gives things to people, and b) it's noble or kind hearted to argue that they should, or c) it's evil and selfish to argue that they shouldn't.

My post is more in disagreement with the attitude of the OP about all this, rather than the policy itself. I doubt it would break the bank, it's for people who qualify for support anyway, and times are really hard. For what it's worth if it were up to me I wouldn't oppose this. I find the way this discussion is framed to be very disagreeable though.

I partly agree with you. People are very quick to say the government should pay for this or that, but when asked to pay more tax, flatly refuse (or vote for a party which will keep their tax low).

It never fails to amaze me that people don't understand the term government spending ... like in people minds there's a pot of money ownerd by Rishi and Boris and they're deciding who to give their own money to.

We should always use the term public spending and we should stop using terms along the lines of "government taxation" because the dim mulititudes have clearly haven't understood the concepts involved here and we do need to have grown up conversations to agree what sort of thing it's appropriate for the state to spend on and what should be left to the individual.

Where I don't agree is that the poor now are becoming so much poorer that many people aren't going to be able to feed their families without support from the state and we will have to intervene in peoples finances in ways like this for the foreseeable future

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I suppose you could ask why aren't existing child benefits covering their meals?

You're being furloughed whilst on minimum wage so only receiving 80% of that. Your rent and utilities still need paying and the rent can be as high as 49% of your wages in some areas. It's easy to fall down between the cracks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42179119

 

[stewart12]

also, how much do people think Child Benefit is?

I have a kid and get £82 a month. Fortunately we have an "alright" income, but if we were both on UC that £82 is going to do absolutely jack sh1t

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I partly agree with you. People are very quick to say the government should pay for this or that, but when asked to pay more tax, flatly refuse (or vote for a party which will keep their tax low).

It never fails to amaze me that people don't understand the term government spending ... like in people minds there's a pot of money ownerd by Rishi and Boris and they're deciding who to give their own money to.

We should always use the term public spending and we should stop using terms along the lines of "government taxation" because the dim mulititudes have clearly haven't understood the concepts involved here and we do need to have grown up conversations to agree what sort of thing it's appropriate for the state to spend on and what should be left to the individual.

Where I don't agree is that the poor now are becoming so much poorer that many people aren't going to be able to feed their families without support from the state and we will have to intervene in peoples finances in ways like this for the foreseeable future

Jobs are disappearing and furloughs are not covering the minimum wage.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Did you read the OP?

Ah, welcome to debating with Is it PotG?

Misses the point by miles, deflects for a bit and then gets mock offended. I suspect the last part's in the post once he reads this reply.

It's like discussing knitting with a hamster.

 

[Gwylan]

It never fails to amaze me that people don't understand the term government spending ... like in people minds there's a pot of money ownerd by Rishi and Boris and they're deciding who to give their own money to.

That's just nonsense. I don't think there's a single person in the country who believes that government comes out Johnson's personal bank account. They're fully aware that the government has a pot of money to spend and, yes, the PM and his cabinet do decide how it's spent.

I suspect that most people are fully aware that there's some limit to the expenditure but when they see a government spent £12 billion on an Excel spreadsheet (and £7,000 per day for consultants to implement it), countless millions going to firms run by Tory donors and £106 billion on HS2, there's a reasonable assumption that the limit is some way off.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Isn't he just demanding that some peoples money be given to some other people?

If you want to be a good person then make personal sacrafices, give what belongs to you, don't just demand things from others.

As things stand kids don't generally depend on the state for food, and making that so wouldn't be an improvement. I tend to think that it's a parent's job to feed their kids.

Sorry, I guess I am a bad person.

yes it is a parents duty but unfortunately plenty of parents either neglect to do that OR are put in a position where they can't and i don't think it is right that the kids should suffer because of that.

 

[Jim in the West]

I do understand the basic principles involved here.

There is nothing noble about demanding things from other people.

Nobody's life improves when they become accustomed to depending on the state.

I genuinely don't find this kind of thing to be generous or kind.

If you have more than you need, which you might, then there are places and people who are organized to help others, and if you can afford it, it would be noble to voluntarily give what you can. Perhaps you know a family in your local community who is struggling and need help. Help them.

But don't demand things of others and try to claim moral superiority because you did.

I am a very big admirer of charitable giving and the people who do it. I'm not such a fan of "charitable taking" though.

EDIT: Looking at the suggested policy, I'm not particularly against the idea. I just don't agree a) that it's always a good thing when the state gives things to people, and b) it's noble or kind hearted to argue that they should, or c) it's evil and selfish to argue that they shouldn't.

My post is more in disagreement with the attitude of the OP about all this, rather than the policy itself. I doubt it would break the bank, it's for people who qualify for support anyway, and times are really hard. For what it's worth if it were up to me I wouldn't oppose this. I find the way this discussion is framed to be very disagreeable though.

I don't disagree with most of that, but I think many people's reaction to the vote in parliament is informed by the current government's priorities. Most of what is going on in this country at the moment is designed to enrich the already wealthy (be that Brexit, deregulation, huge contracts awarded to "mates", top jobs given to chums, etc, etc). Against this background of general sleaze/corruption/immorality we have someone who is standing up and saying "please make sure the most disadvantaged kids in our society get a square meal". Unfortunately, a whole bunch of privileged MPs have decided they don't want to do that. All the electioneering around "levelling up" was basically a load of cr*p, as we are now discovering.

 

[Hastings gull]

You can't see why this government might reflect on people's feelings about their nationality? Really? So to give an extreme example, you don't look at Haiti, for example, and think "tin pot corrupt country"?

This government embarrasses us on an international stage. They are corrupt, they are liars and they are so useless that they are probably the worst government we will ever see. And to make matters worse, they were elected with a massive majority which suggests our countrymen were too moronic to see this coming. So yes, the state of our country embarrasses me.

Yet another arrogant poster on NSC who sees fit to put his view of life well ahead of millions of allegedly moronic voters. Perhaps it is the likes of you with your superiority that should make us feel embarrassed, as you seem to want to link the issue with nationality. Cue the usual abuse when he sees a contrary opinion, as he criticises others.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yet another arrogant poster on NSC who sees fit to put his view of life well ahead of millions of allegedly moronic voters. Perhaps it is the likes of you with your superiority that should make us feel embarrassed, as you seem to want to link the issue with nationality. Cue the usual abuse when he sees a contrary opinion, as he criticises others.

You just wade in with a personal attack instead of debating the subject.

 

[Hastings gull]

I do understand the basic principles involved here.

There is nothing noble about demanding things from other people.

Nobody's life improves when they become accustomed to depending on the state.

I genuinely don't find this kind of thing to be generous or kind.

If you have more than you need, which you might, then there are places and people who are organized to help others, and if you can afford it, it would be noble to voluntarily give what you can. Perhaps you know a family in your local community who is struggling and need help. Help them.

But don't demand things of others and try to claim moral superiority because you did.

I am a very big admirer of charitable giving and the people who do it. I'm not such a fan of "charitable taking" though.

EDIT: Looking at the suggested policy, I'm not particularly against the idea. I just don't agree a) that it's always a good thing when the state gives things to people, and b) it's noble or kind hearted to argue that they should, or c) it's evil and selfish to argue that they shouldn't.My post is more in disagreement with the attitude of the OP about all this, rather than the policy itself. I doubt it would break the bank, it's for people who qualify for support anyway, and times are really hard. For what it's worth if it were up to me I wouldn't oppose this. I find the way this discussion is framed to be very disagreeable though.

Exactly.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Rashford and Lineker are inspirational on the pitch.
Still waiting to see what they do off the pitch apart from trying to undermine a government that is spending money like labour.
They need to make a charity from all their contacts and put there money where the mouths are, they shouldn't have to many issues in covering the holiday gap.

Ps Rishi will not let kids starve, bed wetters need to get their heads around this.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's worth noting that Scotland and Wales, being devolved, are still providing free school meals in the holidays, for those that need them. This vote only applied to England.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Politics, unnecessary?

You'll be a Tory then. Someone who voted this shower in, but doesn't want to acknowledge the truth about them.

Don't be silly. How presumptuous. I voted for them purely on the basis that i wanted Brexit and Corbyn although euro sceptic all his life had abandoned that and was unelectable. As it happens I like Starmer and hope he continues in a strong position when an election is due.

I just opened the thread thinking it was about the wonderful Rashford but instead it was a rant.