If unemployment were paid on to a card..

like a debit card and they had to purchase solely through that card, what they purchased could be vetted, anything that was not imperative such as fags, booze, tattoos that showed up on the purchases would be deducted from their next months money...  

not a good idea then..

heavenly father wrote:not a good idea then..

When did you ever have a good idea.   

heavenly father wrote:like a debit card and they had to purchase solely through that card, what they purchased could be vetted, anything that was not imperative such as fags, booze, tattoos that showed up on the purchases would be deducted from their next months money...  

You will have to come up with an argument as to why those out of work should be denied the right to choose how to spend their money.

Actually, that's the way benefits work in most of the U.S. (though they're run at the state level in many cases, so there is some variance). It doesn't completely prevent cheating, though; there are still shop owners who occasionally lose their right to accept benefits cards when they're busted for fraud.

heavenly father wrote:like a debit card and they had to purchase solely through that card, what they purchased could be vetted, anything that was not imperative such as fags, booze, tattoos that showed up on the purchases would be deducted from their next months money...  

It isn't a bad idea but like sphinx said, you can't really tell people how to spend their money.
BUT!
I do think that Child Benefit could work like that.....

sphinx wrote:

heavenly father wrote:like a debit card and they had to purchase solely through that card, what they purchased could be vetted, anything that was not imperative such as fags, booze, tattoos that showed up on the purchases would be deducted from their next months money...  

You will have to come up with an argument as to why those out of work should be denied the right to choose how to spend their money.

They could spend it on those things instead of food and heating I guess, but if they do that, they clearly don't need to eat or keep warm, so why should they get anything?   

I was temporarily laid off for two months last year. I recievent unemployment benefits for a few weeks of that two month stretch ( I did not take all the benefits I was due just because of the inconvenience of filing for it weekly) It was sent to me on a Chase branded debit card, along with a PIN number for me to access funds at ATM's or to use debit purchase at the grocery store, etc.


As far as *I* know, there is absolutely NO limit as to what your unemployment benefits may be spent on, in the state of Texas. Booze, trips to the strip club, food, rent, medical necessities, etc. Drug dealer doesnt have a merchant/square account? ... go to the local ATM, profit.

@Ben
"there are still shop owners who occasionally lose their right to accept benefits cards when they're busted for fraud."

while I have no doubt as to this happening somewhere, with the system Texas has in place, I dont understand how this would happen here, without suspending a shop owners ability to accept credit/debit cards. And working around that is as easy as the dozens of smartphone attachable merchant account thingys (Square/Intuit/PayPal Here/ChargeMe, etc.)

Guest wrote:like a debit card and they had to purchase solely through that card, what they purchased could be vetted, anything that was not imperative such as fags, booze, tattoos that showed up on the purchases would be deducted from their next months money...  

I think not.

Its 2014,not 1984.

eddie wrote:

heavenly father wrote:like a debit card and they had to purchase solely through that card, what they purchased could be vetted, anything that was not imperative such as fags, booze, tattoos that showed up on the purchases would be deducted from their next months money...  

It isn't a bad idea but like sphinx said, you can't really tell people how to spend their money.
BUT!
I do think that Child Benefit could work like that.....

I would go further and say its a horrible mindset that would make unemployed people feel belittled,patronised and controlled.

Child benefit there could be a case for as it is important that children receive what they need and the money is spent on them.

But the idea of dictating to a grown adult without dependents what they spend their money on is somewhat distasteful. Its not my bloody business nor anyone else's.

FluffyBunny wrote:

eddie wrote:

It isn't a bad idea but like sphinx said, you can't really tell people how to spend their money.
BUT!
I do think that Child Benefit could work like that.....

I would go further and say its a horrible mindset that would make unemployed people feel belittled,patronised and controlled.

Child benefit there could be a case for as it is important that children receive what they need and the money is spent on them.

But the idea of dictating to a grown adult without dependents what they spend their money on is somewhat distasteful. Its not my bloody business nor anyone else's.

Hi fluffy, yeah it's little dictatorial, I agree.
But I'd really,like to see child benefit done like this, so that at least the government could see that it was being spent on children.

I also think a percentage of it should be shown going into a savings,account in the child's name.

eddie wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I would go further and say its a horrible mindset that would make unemployed people feel belittled,patronised and controlled.
Child benefit there could be a case for as it is important that children receive what they need and the money is spent on them.
But the idea of dictating to a grown adult without dependents what they spend their money on is somewhat distasteful. Its not my bloody business nor anyone else's.

Hi fluffy, yeah it's little dictatorial, I agree.
But I'd really,like to see child benefit done like this, so that at least the government could see that it was being spent on children.

I also think a percentage of it should be shown going into a savings,account in the child's name.

I agree. With this idea the money not put into a savings account could be put on a card that could only be used to pay for clothes, medicines, happiest, babyfood etc....of course it would get harder as they grow older but here in the us we now have a health care plan where you can get some portion of your pay tax free put into a health savings account and you get a debit card that can only be used for doctors, hospitals, emergency care, prescriptions and over the counter medical items and will get rejected if its tried to pay for anything else so the technology is there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You will have to come up with an argument as to why those out of work should be denied the right to choose how to spend their money.

They could spend it on those things instead of food and heating I guess, but if they do that, they clearly don't need to eat or keep warm, so why should they get anything?   

that's precisely the idea...  

basically it is money given to them to keep them until they find work again, that was the idea of the benefits, well before it became instead of working, if they cannot chose how to spend it, that might just be the push they need to get off it and work...

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:basically it is money given to them to keep them until they find work again, that was the idea of the benefits, well before it became instead of working, if they cannot chose how to spend it, that might just be the push they need to get off it and work...

Not all of the unemployed can work, so how is instigating something as a measure to get people who cannot work a benefit?

eddie wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I would go further and say its a horrible mindset that would make unemployed people feel belittled,patronised and controlled.

Child benefit there could be a case for as it is important that children receive what they need and the money is spent on them.

But the idea of dictating to a grown adult without dependents what they spend their money on is somewhat distasteful. Its not my bloody business nor anyone else's.

Hi fluffy, yeah it's little dictatorial, I agree.
But I'd really,like to see child benefit done like this, so that at least the government could see that it was being spent on children.

I also think a percentage of it should be shown going into a savings,account in the child's name.

Why just child benefit then?

BigAndy9 wrote:

eddie wrote:

Hi fluffy, yeah it's little dictatorial, I agree.
But I'd really,like to see child benefit done like this, so that at least the government could see that it was being spent on children.

I also think a percentage of it should be shown going into a savings,account in the child's name.

Why just child benefit then?

Because it's a little dictatorial and becomes a bit shameful. Not everyone who is unemployed is a bum, some people are truly seeking work so should we punish them because they want a beer on a Friday night?

Children have no say in how their money gets spent, and I think they should.

eddie wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Why just child benefit then?

Because it's a little dictatorial and becomes a bit shameful. Not everyone who is unemployed is a bum, some people are truly seeking work so should we punish them because they want a beer on a Friday night?

Children have no say in how their money gets spent, and I think they should.

No and nobody is saying they are.

Those who have a beer on a Friday night and who are truly seeking work probably couldn't care less if it were paid on a card would they?

The only people who would be up in arms are the scroungers who have no intention of seeking work.

And this shouldn't be about the two million who don't work, it should be about the 20 million who pay for them.

eddie wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Why just child benefit then?

Because it's a little dictatorial and becomes a bit shameful. Not everyone who is unemployed is a bum, some people are truly seeking work so should we punish them because they want a beer on a Friday night?

Children have no say in how their money gets spent, and I think they should.

of course not all unemployed are bums and the card system would show those who are trying to do the right thing and use the benefits they are given wisely... so they can show others they are not the problem...

BigAndy9 wrote:

eddie wrote:


Because it's a little dictatorial and becomes a bit shameful. Not everyone who is unemployed is a bum, some people are truly seeking work so should we punish them because they want a beer on a Friday night?

Children have no say in how their money gets spent, and I think they should.

No and nobody is saying they are.  

Those who have a beer on a Friday night and who are truly seeking work probably couldn't care less if it were paid on a card would they?

The only people who would be up in arms are the scroungers who have no intention of seeking work.

They would if the card prevented them from having a beer on Friday night because the card had been set to prevent spending on alcohol.

sphinx wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

No and nobody is saying they are.  

Those who have a beer on a Friday night and who are truly seeking work probably couldn't care less if it were paid on a card would they?

The only people who would be up in arms are the scroungers who have no intention of seeking work.

They would if the card prevented them from having a beer on Friday night because the card had been set to prevent spending on alcohol.

Oh, you want to prevent them spending their money on alcohol?

I ask you that question because you have just brought it up - nobody else said restrict them spending on alcohol, I think people mentioned observing their spending.

The first post stated than whatever was spent on booze (among other things) would be deducted from the next weeks/fortnights money - that sounds like restricting to me.

sphinx wrote:The first post stated than whatever was spent on booze (among other things) would be deducted from the next weeks/fortnights money - that sounds like restricting to me.

Apologies, it does.

As I said - we have reached a point where the purse is running low - what do we do - keep on spending or budget?

Do we take money from one child who works hard and give that money to our other child who likes to waste money?

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:The first post stated than whatever was spent on booze (among other things) would be deducted from the next weeks/fortnights money - that sounds like restricting to me.

Apologies, it does.

As I said - we have reached a point where the purse is running low - what do we do - keep on spending or budget?

Do we take money from one child who works hard and give that money to our other child who likes to waste money?

In my opinion the problem is not the giving of the money in the first place it is the protecting from the consequences of bad decisions. Or even the attempts to prevent the making of bad decisions in the first place.

The only way people learn to be responsible is to have responsibility and make mistakes and suffer consequences. A large amount of parenting is the careful increasing of responsibility for each child that allows mistakes with consequences but not too serious ones.

sphinx wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Apologies, it does.

As I said - we have reached a point where the purse is running low - what do we do - keep on spending or budget?

Do we take money from one child who works hard and give that money to our other child who likes to waste money?

In my opinion the problem is not the giving of the money in the first place it is the protecting from the consequences of bad decisions.  Or even the attempts to prevent the making of bad decisions in the first place.

The only way people learn to be responsible is to have responsibility and make mistakes and suffer consequences.  A large amount of parenting is the careful increasing of responsibility for each child that allows mistakes with consequences but not too serious ones.

And how does this government and the last one ensure adults on benefits suffer any consequences at all if they waste their money?

Answer - it can't - the country has become too liberalised.

The idea of punishing scroungers just doesn't exist.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

In my opinion the problem is not the giving of the money in the first place it is the protecting from the consequences of bad decisions.  Or even the attempts to prevent the making of bad decisions in the first place.

The only way people learn to be responsible is to have responsibility and make mistakes and suffer consequences.  A large amount of parenting is the careful increasing of responsibility for each child that allows mistakes with consequences but not too serious ones.

And how does this government and the last one ensure adults on benefits suffer any consequences at all if they waste their money?

Answer - it can't - the country has become too liberalised.  

The idea of punishing scroungers just doesn't exist.

It is worse than that - it is the attempting ensure the mistakes dont happen and paying benefits on cards so spending can be monitored is just another step in that direction. The more you take away from people the more helpless they become.

Its like having housing benefit paid to landlords direct so people cannot get into arrears - all it does is make people think they could not cope with paying their own rent. The problem is intensified by the fact that in social housing if a person does not pay to the point of eviction they just end up back with another house - if they have children that next house arrives almost straight away generally at the cost of the couple who have always paid rent and been on the waiting list for years choosing not to get pregnant until they are homed.

I would like to see not only UC where people will be responsible for their own rent but changes in the system so that anyone evicted for non payment goes right to the bottom of the list for social housing - and if they have children those children go into foster care until the parent has found suitable accommodation. Obviously there would have to be safeguards for those who have genuine problems but having benefit paid to landlord should be the exception instead of the rule.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:basically it is money given to them to keep them until they find work again, that was the idea of the benefits, well before it became instead of working, if they cannot chose how to spend it, that might just be the push they need to get off it and work...

No,the whole notion is too demeaning. Just because a person can't work for whatever notion does not mean people should be privy to what they spend their very meager amount of money on.let alone dictate it.

I would have no problem with this being put in place for child benefit though as that money is specifically for children.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:basically it is money given to them to keep them until they find work again, that was the idea of the benefits, well before it became instead of working, if they cannot chose how to spend it, that might just be the push they need to get off it and work...

No,the whole notion is too demeaning. Just because a person can't work for whatever notion does not mean people should be privy to what they spend their very meager amount of money on.let alone dictate it.

I would have no problem with this being put in place for child benefit though as that money is specifically for children.

...well said Fluffy, nice to see some of us have some compassion and sense, would you believe some of these people are supposed to be Christian who say such uncaring things?...

God like when it suits them.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

In my opinion the problem is not the giving of the money in the first place it is the protecting from the consequences of bad decisions.  Or even the attempts to prevent the making of bad decisions in the first place.

The only way people learn to be responsible is to have responsibility and make mistakes and suffer consequences.  A large amount of parenting is the careful increasing of responsibility for each child that allows mistakes with consequences but not too serious ones.

And how does this government and the last one ensure adults on benefits suffer any consequences at all if they waste their money?

Answer - it can't - the country has become too liberalised.  

The idea of punishing scroungers just doesn't exist.

Why do you want to 'punish ' 'scroungers'?
You do realise that 99% of benefit claimants are genuine therefore you would be punishing a tiny tiny amount 1% but demeaning,patronising and demoralising ALL the genuine claimants with your proposed idea?

Also what is your definition of 'wasteful spending'?

FluffyBunny wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:basically it is money given to them to keep them until they find work again, that was the idea of the benefits, well before it became instead of working, if they cannot chose how to spend it, that might just be the push they need to get off it and work...

No,the whole notion is too demeaning. Just because a person can't work for whatever notion does not mean people should be privy to what they spend their very meager amount of money on.let alone dictate it.

I would have no problem with this being put in place for child benefit though as that money is specifically for children.

Wouldn't it stop some youngsters buying skunk (weed) though?
If the card were only to be used in shops or for oyster top-up, for example, it would cut down the use of street drugs, surely?

In fact the more I think about it, the better I think It might be for those youngsters who are just bumming around....

Joy Division wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

No,the whole notion is too demeaning. Just because a person can't work for whatever notion does not mean people should be privy to what they spend their very meager amount of money on.let alone dictate it.

I would have no problem with this being put in place for child benefit though as that money is specifically for children.

...well said Fluffy, nice to see some of us have some compassion and sense, would you believe some of these people are supposed to be Christian who say such uncaring things?...

God like when it suits them.

Hello JD,  

I try no to judge,everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint but I think this idea is too demeaning. For this reason it has no realistic chance of being implemented.

Eve by the Tories  ::D:: 

eddie wrote:In fact the more I think about it, the better I think It might be for those youngsters who are just bumming around....

What about the bankers who brought about the collapse in this country and continue to receive huge bonuses despite the fact normal working people are having to resort to food banks?

How to you intend to 'punish' them or are we merely going for the easy targets?

FluffyBunny wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


...well said Fluffy, nice to see some of us have some compassion and sense, would you believe some of these people are supposed to be Christian who say such uncaring things?...

God like when it suits them.

Hello JD,  

I try no to judge,everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint but I think this idea is too demeaning. For this reason it has no realistic chance of being implemented.

Eve by the Tories  ::D:: 

Your spot on Fluffy, it is a demeaning suggestion , just as it is when Andy says those on benefits should not be allowed to own pets, buy scratch cards or have a holiday.


And all so some can laugh and sneer at others, thankfully those things won't happen, I doubt even this government are so stupid as to let it...

But you never know.

eddie wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

No,the whole notion is too demeaning. Just because a person can't work for whatever notion does not mean people should be privy to what they spend their very meager amount of money on.let alone dictate it.

I would have no problem with this being put in place for child benefit though as that money is specifically for children.

Wouldn't it stop some youngsters buying skunk (weed) though?
If the card were only to be used in shops or for oyster top-up, for example, it would cut down the use of street drugs, surely?

So only the wealthy can buy weed?  

This just seems like small beans to em when you consider the huge amount of poverty in this country which is caused by the inhuman Tory cuts and yes,the mistakes of the last Labour government.

I have no interest in wanting to stop or supervise the activities of grown adults when there are far more distressing elements in society like the working people still forced to go to food banks etc

FluffyBunny wrote:

eddie wrote:In fact the more I think about it, the better I think It might be for those youngsters who are just bumming around....

What about the bankers who brought about the collapse in this country and continue to receive huge bonuses despite the fact normal working people are having to resort to food banks?

How to you intend to 'punish' them or are we merely going for the easy targets?

Let me tell you folks...this lassie has her head screwed on, indeed where is the punishment for the greedy bankers who did bring about the collapse?...

As always some want the poor to suffer , bear the brunt and blame.

Joy Division wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Hello JD,  

I try no to judge,everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint but I think this idea is too demeaning. For this reason it has no realistic chance of being implemented.

Eve by the Tories  ::D:: 

Your spot on Fluffy, it is a demeaning suggestion , just as it is when Andy says those on benefits should not be allowed to own pets, buy scratch cards or have a holiday.


And all so some can laugh and sneer at others, thankfully those things won't happen, I doubt even this government are so stupid as to let it...

But you never know.

Off topic I am strangely drawn to your avatar,its the lead singer isn't it.  

The Tories might wish to implement this sort of thing but as they are currently part of a coalition thankfully the Lib Dems would not approve it.

I was very pleasantly surprised by the 10K tax break introduced by this government but later discovered it was Lib Dem,not Tory,legislation.

FluffyBunny wrote:

eddie wrote:

Wouldn't it stop some youngsters buying skunk (weed) though?
If the card were only to be used in shops or for oyster top-up, for example, it would cut down the use of street drugs, surely?

So only the wealthy can buy weed?  

This just seems like small beans to em when you consider the huge amount of poverty in this country which is caused by the inhuman Tory cuts and yes,the mistakes of the last Labour government.

I have no interest in wanting to stop or supervise the activities of grown adults when there are far more distressing elements in society like the working people still forced to go to food banks etc

The wealthy do like to dictate to the poorer classes, it's ok for for the wealthy to buy pot , even though illegal, so long as the poor don't buy a wee of the same stuff from their dole money ...

Astounding!!

The problem is the plan was always that working would bring in more than not working - and as the system has grown in complexity an unintentional effect has been the loss of working bringing in more than not working.

This government is trying to change that in both the short/medium term with benefit caps etc and the long term with Universal Credit. Once the system is back to working always paying more than not working then the whole problem of "scrounging" should diminish to pretty much nothing.

At the end of the day a basic survival rule is to get as much as you can with as little effort as possible - as long as people can get more doing less they will choose to do so no matter how you try and stop them.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Your spot on Fluffy, it is a demeaning suggestion , just as it is when Andy says those on benefits should not be allowed to own pets, buy scratch cards or have a holiday.


And all so some can laugh and sneer at others, thankfully those things won't happen, I doubt even this government are so stupid as to let it...

But you never know.

Off topic I am strangely drawn to your avatar,its the lead singer isn't it.  

The Tories might wish to implement this sort of thing but as they are currently part of a coalition thankfully the Lib Dems would not approve it.

I was very pleasantly surprised by the 10K tax break introduced by this government but later discovered it was Lib Dem,not Tory,legislation.

Yeah it's Ian Curtis !!...

I was surprised by the tax allowance too Fluffy, but as you say it was a lib dem thing...

Although with the rise of the cost of living it had to happen.

sphinx wrote:The problem is the plan was always that working would bring in more than not working - and as the system has grown in complexity an unintentional effect has been the loss of working bringing in more than not working.

This government is trying to change that in both the short/medium term with benefit caps etc and the long term with Universal Credit.  Once the system is back to working always paying more than not working then the whole problem of "scrounging" should diminish to pretty much nothing.

At the end of the day a basic survival rule is to get as much as you can with as little effort as possible - as long as people can get more doing less they will choose to do so no matter how you try and stop them.

I agree with you but oftentimes the people who are in poverty are infact both working and in receipt of benefits,tax credit etc. They can't make ends meet with their income alone because wages are so low.

This problem is the creation of the government,that people who work a full time job can no longer expect a decent working wage.

FluffyBunny wrote:

sphinx wrote:The problem is the plan was always that working would bring in more than not working - and as the system has grown in complexity an unintentional effect has been the loss of working bringing in more than not working.

This government is trying to change that in both the short/medium term with benefit caps etc and the long term with Universal Credit.  Once the system is back to working always paying more than not working then the whole problem of "scrounging" should diminish to pretty much nothing.

At the end of the day a basic survival rule is to get as much as you can with as little effort as possible - as long as people can get more doing less they will choose to do so no matter how you try and stop them.

I agree with you but oftentimes the people who are in poverty are infact both working and in receipt of benefits,tax credit etc. They can't make ends meet with their income alone because wages are so low.

This problem is the creation of the government,that people who work a full time job can no longer expect a  decent working wage.

Sorry but bollocks.

When you say they cant make ends meet you mean they cannot make the ends they want to have meet. I am officially living in poverty and I know exactly what the sums are. If someone working and getting tax credits cannot afford food because they are paying back the loan that let them go on holiday last summer then sorry that is not the governments fault for not giving them enough money it is their fault for borrowing money to go on holiday. Replace going on holiday with whichever bill is taking the money.

If a person does not borrow anything then the benefits or wages and benefits are easily enough to cover food clothing and power/heating. Not being able to afford stuff because of loan repayments falls into the area of personal responsibility not the government doesnt provide enough money.

Why would a group of people on here on some days say people are starving and can't make ends meet, missing meals etc so the kids can have one.

And then on other days argue the toss over those same people having a beer and doing the leisure activities they want?

lets face it we all use our money in the ways we see fit, some go out every weekend, some do sports, if you earn it use it how you like, you earned it but if you are getting hand outs why shouldn't they be checked to make sure the money is being used with care and properly, if someone gets money for their three kids why shouldn't it be clear that money clothes and feeds those kids and not buys fags, booze and tattoos..

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:lets face it we all use our money in the ways we see fit, some go out every weekend, some do sports, if you earn it use it how you like, you earned it but if you are getting hand outs why shouldn't they be checked to make sure the money is being used with care and properly, if someone gets money for their three kids why shouldn't it be clear that money clothes and feeds those kids and not buys fags, booze and tattoos..

In any other country God...

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:lets face it we all use our money in the ways we see fit, some go out every weekend, some do sports, if you earn it use it how you like, you earned it but if you are getting hand outs why shouldn't they be checked to make sure the money is being used with care and properly, if someone gets money for their three kids why shouldn't it be clear that money clothes and feeds those kids and not buys fags, booze and tattoos..

So make it simple - if the kids are clean clothed and fed the parents can do what they want with the rest of the money (bearing in mind the vast majority have worked and paid taxes and NI) and that is their right - if the kids are dirty cold and hungry they are taken into care regardless of whether the parents are working or not.

Why do we have to complicate things?

sphinx wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:lets face it we all use our money in the ways we see fit, some go out every weekend, some do sports, if you earn it use it how you like, you earned it but if you are getting hand outs why shouldn't they be checked to make sure the money is being used with care and properly, if someone gets money for their three kids why shouldn't it be clear that money clothes and feeds those kids and not buys fags, booze and tattoos..

So make it simple - if the kids are clean clothed and fed the parents can do what they want with the rest of the money (bearing in mind the vast majority have worked and paid taxes and NI) and that is their right - if the kids are dirty cold and hungry they are taken into care regardless of whether the parents are working or not.

Why do we have to complicate things?

The country doesn't have the resources/people/money to stop starving 3 year olds or help black kids having voodoo practiced on them, never mind monitoring dirty kids.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So make it simple - if the kids are clean clothed and fed the parents can do what they want with the rest of the money (bearing in mind the vast majority have worked and paid taxes and NI) and that is their right - if the kids are dirty cold and hungry they are taken into care regardless of whether the parents are working or not.

Why do we have to complicate things?

The country doesn't have the resources/people/money to stop starving 3 year olds or help black kids having voodoo practiced on them, never mind monitoring dirty kids.

Maybe if less monitoring more simple "has this child been harmed? yes or no" was used the money would cover more children.

sphinx wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


The country doesn't have the resources/people/money to stop starving 3 year olds or help black kids having voodoo practiced on them, never mind monitoring dirty kids.

Maybe if less monitoring more simple "has this child been harmed? yes or no" was used the money would cover more children.

Who is going to ask that question?

When?

Where?

And who is going to answer it?