??There is always someone out to protect the deserving poor, because at the end of the day they essentially are a goldmine.
??There is always someone out to protect the deserving poor, because at the end of the day they essentially are a goldmine.
Upskill to do what?
Essentially in both of the above scenarios, people have created well paid jobs for themselves by "protecting the deserving poor".
I'm such a cynic at times
Upskill to anything to help getting a job.
GP, Barber, Butcher, Banker, Barman etc
What I'm suggesting is contained in my earlier post - but I'll say it again if you like. It is usually a good idea to get two sides of a story, before you rush to judgement.I'm going on what the Purple posted. Are you suggesting that he is lying?
There is always someone out to protect the deserving poor, because at the end of the day they are essentially a goldmine.
Here's a challenge - I won't ask you to find the 'tens of thousands', but maybe you could find 1,000 employees in this 'lucrative industry'. Start a list of some of these organisations that employ large numbers of people in this 'lucrative industry'.Think about it. Poverty in this country has been turned into a lucrative industry. How many tens of thousands now work in that industry, making quite a substantial living? If we didn't have the deserving poor, most of those people would be out of a job.
You might want to check out .
I'm sorry if you regard these as terms of abuse to you personally, that was not my intention which is why they were in brackets. The public generally perceive people with your opinion on this topic to be "do gooders or bleeding heart liberals" I would regard myself as a "liberal" in certain matters but not when it comes to people who just take advantage and spin a good yarn.
I was referring to this section from the guidelines "Attack an opinion by all means, but please don't attack the person expressing the opinion."I'm sorry if you regard these as terms of abuse to you personally
What I'm suggesting is contained in my earlier post - but I'll say it again if you like. It is usually a good idea to get two sides of a story, before you rush to judgement.
What I'm suggesting is contained in my earlier post - but I'll say it again if you like. It is usually a good idea to get two sides of a story, before you rush to judgement.
Here's a challenge - I won't ask you to find the 'tens of thousands', but maybe you could find 1,000 employees in this 'lucrative industry'. Start a list of some of these organisations that employ large numbers of people in this 'lucrative industry'.
If you mean your posts and purples, then after some consideration, I'm going with Purples, even though we had our spats in the past .
Lucrative or poverty industry whatever you want to call it, is doing fine and well in this country. How many quango's and their associative quangocrats now work in well paid jobs to assist the deserving poor? The government spends billions of euros each year paying out wages and pensions for this. Without the deserving poor those people would be out of jobs.
You've asked the question ?
Now can you give us the answer ?
Name the quangos and outline the numbers they employ , if you can tell us how many billions are expended to maintain them as well then that would be helpful .
Lucrative or poverty industry whatever you want to call it, is doing fine and well in this country. How many quango's and their associative quangocrats now work in well paid jobs to assist the deserving poor? The government spends billions of euros each year paying out wages and pensions for this. Without the deserving poor those people would be out of jobs.
Well the government spends around €21 billion in social welfare. I do not know exactly how much of this is ministered to the deserving poor but I'm sure it's quite a lot. We also have between 800 to 1000 quangos in existance. Again not sure how many exist because of the deserving poor but you can read about them here: [broken link removed]
Also, take into account charities which can receive substantial sums of taxpayers money and award their directors massive salaries.
Well the government spends around €21 billion in social welfare. I do not know exactly how much of this is ministered to the deserving poor but I'm sure it's quite a lot. We also have between 800 to 1000 quangos in existance. Again not sure how many exist because of the deserving poor but you can read about them here: [broken link removed]
Also, take into account charities which can receive substantial sums of taxpayers money and award their directors massive salaries.
So you reckon that DSP is now part of the 'lucrative poverty industry'? So payment of job seekers benefit, children's allowances, old age pensions, illness benefit etc are now part of 'poverty industry'? Come on now - let's get real.OK I can speak with some authority on this one.
First, the DSFA or the Department of Social Protection is one organisation that deals with social security. Within this organisation you've got the Appeals board which is suppose to be independent but its funded by the Department.
Your 'authoritative position' is a little out of date. From [broken link removed] "On 1 July 2009 the Combat Poverty Agency was integrated with the Office for Social Inclusion to form the Social Inclusion Division within the Department of Social and Family Affairs.You've got the Combat Poverty Agency that research's poverty that could be brought back into the Department.
Where exactly is the duplication that you are talking? What services/funding are being duplicated?This is what McCarthy was talking about in respect to the need to cut funding and the duplication of services.
I read every word of the bits of the report that applied to my own area. It was very unimpressed with the level of understanding of the services provided in my area. I've gone back over the DSFA sections of Vol 1 of the report now, and there is no mention of duplication. So again I'll ask you to identify the areas of duplication that you are talking about.Have you read the McCarthy Report? It refers to the duplication of services. The McCarthy report also refers to the need to streamline funding so that organisations receive funding from one organisation so that there is not cross-cutting across several departments and organisations.
More vague allegations - who are these "multiple other organisations that deal with persons who are deemed to be living in poverty"?As for the Department of social protection while it does provide social security it is involved in the poverty industry since it provides funding through its spin offs to multiple other organisations that deal with persons who are deemed to be living in poverty.