eileen alana
Registered User
- Messages
- 476
Figures just released from CSO show 10,000 people joined the live register in June.
Yeah but that doesn't mean that they're right. There's an exception to every rule, you know (2 in this case)Purple and uiop come from a poor background and have expressed their opinions.
Television - purple and uiop come from a poor background and have expressed their opinions. Surely these are the people the government should be listening to? Unless you come from a poor background yourself and are offering your opinions based on that experience?
Please read my posts again, I said that the primary cause was social. Of course economic issues factor in the equation.Purple poverty is a complex issue. You arguing that it is a social and not economic problem is pretty spurious. As any serious analysis of poverty would suggest that the causes of poverty and both social and economic, in fact they both factors are intertwined.
I agree completely. My point is that you cannot give people a nebulous form of equality, you can only give them equal access to the tools which offer them the chance to have the life they want.You talk about equality of oppurtunity as opposed to equality, but the problem with this is the untimate rationale for equality of oppurtunity is if fact EQUALITY. Or at least giving poor people the chance to have a life where they will be comfortable, understand the value of education, good health, being an active citizen etc.
It’s not that complex. Some people are happy to live for the now and not build a better life for themselves and their children. Others want more. What the state needs to do in help to instil that desire for betterment in children when their parents fail to do so. The programme you were part of in Jobstown is just the sort of thing we need more of. By the way I smoked Johnny Blue for years so it was more a David McWilliams style label than a jibe. I have outlined the sort of pandering to middle income voters, dresses up as an initiative to help the poor, that annoys me.generational poverty will not be solved by your "get on your bike" solution to the poor. You say you come from an area where there was poverty, yet your attitude towards the poor is one of simplistic blame. This is a real shame as it people like you that could offer important insights into the complexity. Yet you choose to settle for "Johnny blue" jibes as a way of undermining issues assciated with poverty.
As long as the state funds access for the poor it doesn’t matter who provides the education.Equality of oppurtunity, yes we all aggree this is the best we can strive for. Yet it is a fact that privatisation education will do nothing to bridge the gap between of oppurtunity between the rich and poor. It will further widen the gap.
I am familiar with the Trinity outreach programme and thing it is a great idea but the majority of the funding needs to go into early primary school education (and in fairness a lot does). I have outlined how I think funding should be targeted for students like the one in your example rather than spread around to people (like me) who don’t really need it. Don’t get me wrong, sending my kids to third level without state funding would not be easy but I could do it with planning and time.Let me give you an example, I have worked on the Trinity Access programme. It aims to get students from socioeconomically deprived areas the chance to go to college. However even with the best supports avalible for these kids, i.e. extra tuition, grants, etc it is very difficult to fit in to the student body at large. See the other students have developed a life of cultural and social capitial and networks etc. And these kids do not want to share cultural and social capitial with kids from clondalkin or finglas. (Now I am not saying that kids from clondalkin do not go to trinity etc on thier own merits and get on great, but this is very rare and these kids have to fight against very subtle but very real prejudices.)
True equality will never exist as there will always be some level of bias, nepotism, racism etc in society but again the root cause is not an economic one. Giving people things that they are capable of providing for themselves does not solve the problem; it perpetuates it.No one is seriously suggesting that the government should turn around and redistribute wealth to make all people equal in that respect. So really you are arguing for nothing really here. We all aggree that equality of oppurtunity is what is needed, but this does not exist and this is the cause of inequality.
:dyeah But That Doesn't Mean That They're Right. There's An Exception To Every Rule, You Know (2 In This Case) :d
What they do is estimate the disposable income per equivalised person, then they get 60% of it, and set this as the "poverty line". If your disp income is below this, then you are "at-risk-of-poverty".
The difference between my family and others my area was that my parents had a work ethic and by not drinking excessively, smoking, gambling etc. were able to afford a mortgage when others with higher incomes took the easy option of council housing and some the even easier option of not working. When my father was made redundant in the 80s with no prospect of ever working in his area of employment ever again, to use an old Tory expression, "he got up on his bike and went searching for work" and started from the bottom again at entry level in another totally different type of job.
In other words the probelm is primarily social, not economic.I know from personal experience that these "barriers" that left wing people talk about are all in the mind - anyone in this country with a bit of work ethic can get themselves out of poverty very easily.
In other words the problem is primarily social, not economic.
The higher rates for travel and subsistence apply across the public sector.
See here:
http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=5326&CatID=28&StartDate=1+January+2008&m=c
and here:
http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=5327&CatID=28&StartDate=1+January+2008&m=c
I don't think anyone would begrudge genuine mileage. However, the fact that most claim around the €4000 mark indicates possible abuse of the system.The increases are small and costs are going up. I don't think that this will ruin the country.
4% increase in their expenses. Or was that a 4% increment? Either way, this isn't going to help us fight our way out of recession.