I don’t think you can cedit the low unemployment levels to the policies of the Labour government, they inherited a very good and rapidly growing economy from the conservatives, unemployment was bound to fall. Also Labour has started using new ways of ‘measuring’ unemployment which automatically leads to a drop in unemplyed, so it’s all a bit of a sleight of hand. The high unemployment rates during the conservative’s reign was due to the previous government taking the country into a huge recession and the Conservatives are the ones who worked us out of the recession, not Labour.
Also Labour’s policies on unemployment have been shown to be fundamentally flawed but 6 months ago with the publication of a report showing that for the majority of unemployed and impoverished, it is only a transitive phase which they fall into at one point and tend to pull themselves out of regardless of the help they are given. WHat they need tends to be enough to survive through that period. I can’t remember which Labour minister it was but he’d worked on the assumption (maybe intuitive) that someone might be born into poverty, live through poverty and die in poverty. The actual reality is quite different.
That’s also a reason for a welfare state, as these people will (in all probability) become a ‘useful’ memeber of society again (that is a member who will contribute to the state through taxes, etc. not just take off the state), but not helping them out in their hour of need you are reducing the future number of contributors.
Actually, and I’m gonna sound harsh but it’s very very true, No. It’s not.
In fact it wouldn’t be if it saved 10, or 20, or a 100. There is a line where you have to start helping, but it’s way away from 1.
That particular argument is akin to saying, why not wrap everyone up in bubble plastic so they can’t hurt themselves.
In order to maintain a welfare system, there is a certain level of support that the other citizens in a country can justifiably be expected to bear on top of their own responsibilites. Beyond that it is not fair to start saying they should live in near poverty just so that no child in the country dies from poverty. It’s a fallicious argument.
Another comparable argument would be, everyone should drive at 5 mph so that no serious accidents could happen. Yes, this would save thousands of lives a year (probably 10s of thousands, I’m not sure of the statistics of accidents here in England). But there’s a price. The economy would suffer heavily (infrastructure is a key need), people’s lives would suffer, they wouldn’t be able to easily go and see this or that, etc., etc. The cost of this out weighs the benefits.
There is a moral argument for a restricted social state. A complete welfare state like your comment suggested Blutgi is just insane.
But I d agree with you that SSSteve must never have been on the dole, I’ve known people on it and let me tell you, they didn’t like it at all.
What you (SSSteve that is) do need to accept (and this may sound like the opposite of the above) is a certain level of abuse of the system is acceptable as long as it’s benefits outweigh the cost. It’s the same point, but used at the other end of the specrtrum.
So a little out of everyone’s pockets who don’t really notice the loss can greatly benefit a few who need it desperatly. And this may be slightly abused as the realtive cost of that is less than not having the welfare system at all.
I also think your figure of 50% of spongers (as we call them) is highly questionable and if it is really true must show that there’s something seriously wrong with the implementation of the system in America, rather than the reasoning behind the system itself. Welfare should be uncomfartable enough to make people want to get a job (and most of the time the psychological factor of hating being on handouts is enough), but comfortable enough so that these people are not at risk.