Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Glurp
8004 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3721

Subscriber

Topic # 198203 30-Jun-2016 10:30
6 people support this post
Send private message

I think this is a fantastic gesture and I think it just reaffirms what a decent, down to earth person she is. But it again raises the question of just whose responsibility it is to make sure kids don't go hungry in the first place. Before all the Tories start howling about bad parents who just want to spend their money on dope and alcohol, I do agree that the parents should be responsible for this in the first instance. My question is where the responsibly lies if the parents cannot or will not live up to this. Should the government step in? Should public money be spent on this? Is it the duty of a humane society to make sure children are fed regardless of whose fault it is? And if it is, why are there hungry children in this country at all? Seems to me like someone isn't doing their job.

 

 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
1504 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 777


  Reply # 1583222 30-Jun-2016 10:46
7 people support this post
Send private message

Yes, govt should step in - kids shouldn't be hungry

 

But there should be a corresponding decrease in welfare payments or tax rebates (eg WFF) to the parents


7212 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3759


  Reply # 1583224 30-Jun-2016 10:51
2 people support this post
Send private message

shk292:

 

Yes, govt should step in - kids shouldn't be hungry

 

But there should be a corresponding decrease in welfare payments or tax rebates (eg WFF) to the parents

 

 

 

 

Great thinking.  Save them from hunger, but give the parents less with which to provide the other necessities of life.

 

 


2520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 937

Subscriber

  Reply # 1583239 30-Jun-2016 11:19
3 people support this post
Send private message

Yes, government should step in. Kids should be removed from the so-called-parents care, as they clearly are not capable of providing basic necessities (assuming we are talking those who consistently and on an ongoing basis fail to provide food for their children).





Windows 7 x64 // i5-3570K // 16GB DDR3-1600 // GTX660Ti 2GB // Samsung 830 120GB SSD // OCZ Agility4 120GB SSD // Samsung U28D590D @ 3840x2160 & Asus PB278Q @ 2560x1440
Samsung Galaxy S5 SM-G900I w/Spark

7212 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3759


  Reply # 1583242 30-Jun-2016 11:31
One person supports this post
Send private message

And it starts...

 

The usual rants suggesting that the way to address the impacts from poverty and disadvantage is to save money and discriminate.

 

Shame.

 

I'd pray for misfortune to shine darkness on those who suggest such things, but that would make me evil too.


2668 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 663


  Reply # 1583260 30-Jun-2016 11:59
4 people support this post
Send private message

how about not having kids if you cant afford to raise them for 18 or so years. 





Common sense is not as common as you think.


12887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6081

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1583269 30-Jun-2016 12:16
17 people support this post
Send private message

vexxxboy:

how about not having kids if you cant afford to raise them for 18 or so years. 



Circumstances change. When we were expecting our first child we had two incomes our own home etc etc. Six months after our child was born the disease I have hit me, two months later no jobs, and we were forced through circumstance to sell our home car etc. Some would say we shouldn't have kids. Fast forward a few years i went into remission and able to work, by a home and general luxuries, that lasted 25 years. But again I flared in a wheel chair and unable to work so I took medical retirement. Again some would say that was our fault.

Luckily my wife has a very good job and we don't need an income from me yet I still get attitudes about that.

So let's not generalise and make judgements unless one knows all the circumstances.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


4444 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 840

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1583273 30-Jun-2016 12:24
5 people support this post
Send private message

vexxxboy:

 

how about not having kids if you cant afford to raise them for 18 or so years. 

 

 

... and do you have the crystal ball to see the future?

 

People lose jobs for whatever reasons beyond their control most of the time.

 

To those who are currently lucky, they should get off their high horse. It is perfectly fine not to help as this is a voluntary act, but one should not be disrespectful to those who are unlucky.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the government has to do something about it but it does not stop me to offer help whenever I can. Who knows what will happen to me in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 






658 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 96

Subscriber

  Reply # 1583277 30-Jun-2016 12:29
One person supports this post
Send private message

The help needs to be given no matter what the circumstance.

 

Would be great to solve the root cause but in the meantime we have to deal with the reality and help these kids.

 

The assistance needs to be there without question, the government can work on reducing the need for the assistance by addressing the cause rather than looking at reducing the assistance given.


2484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 535
Inactive user


  Reply # 1583298 30-Jun-2016 12:51
Send private message

The welfare system in general needs a shake up. I agree that the government should take the responsibility, however the parents need to be educate around budgeting etc. too.

 

Maybe cash is not the answer to welfare, there is too much discretion on how to spend it, I have always liked the idea of the government paying the rent, power etc. then providing a food stamp/ food only debit card, then maybe a smaller amount of discretionary money for things that cannot be predicted for. The welfare system (benefit rather than sickness benefit) needs to not be seen as a lifestyle choice, it is not a pay cheque and should not be seen as one.

 

What I have said above would not disadvantage genuine recipients as their needs are met while they are looking for work.

 

There are always plenty of jobs out there for those that are willing to get down and dirty and swallow their pride.

 

I know as I have done them in order to stay off the dole.


7212 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3759


  Reply # 1583307 30-Jun-2016 13:05
Send private message

dickytim:

 

The welfare system in general needs a shake up.

 

 

Fixed that for you.


11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1583310 30-Jun-2016 13:10
One person supports this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

I think this is a fantastic gesture and I think it just reaffirms what a decent, down to earth person she is. But it again raises the question of just whose responsibility it is to make sure kids don't go hungry in the first place. Before all the Tories start howling about bad parents who just want to spend their money on dope and alcohol, I do agree that the parents should be responsible for this in the first instance. My question is where the responsibly lies if the parents cannot or will not live up to this. Should the government step in? Should public money be spent on this? Is it the duty of a humane society to make sure children are fed regardless of whose fault it is? And if it is, why are there hungry children in this country at all? Seems to me like someone isn't doing their job.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have to be pretty careful. Otherwise you simply make us all liable for costs that properly belong to the parents. I for one am not interested in accepting those costs.






11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1583311 30-Jun-2016 13:11
Send private message

Inphinity:

 

Yes, government should step in. Kids should be removed from the so-called-parents care, as they clearly are not capable of providing basic necessities (assuming we are talking those who consistently and on an ongoing basis fail to provide food for their children).

 

 

 

 

This would only make sense if you can stop them from simply having more..!






12887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6081

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1583314 30-Jun-2016 13:13
Send private message

dickytim:

 

The welfare system in general needs a shake up. I agree that the government should take the responsibility, however the parents need to be educate around budgeting etc. too.

 

Maybe cash is not the answer to welfare, there is too much discretion on how to spend it, I have always liked the idea of the government paying the rent, power etc. then providing a food stamp/ food only debit card, then maybe a smaller amount of discretionary money for things that cannot be predicted for. The welfare system (benefit rather than sickness benefit) needs to not be seen as a lifestyle choice, it is not a pay cheque and should not be seen as one.

 

What I have said above would not disadvantage genuine recipients as their needs are met while they are looking for work.

 

There are always plenty of jobs out there for those that are willing to get down and dirty and swallow their pride.

 

I know as I have done them in order to stay off the dole.

 

 

How does paying the rent, power etc directly and handing alms to give them a bit cash on hand teach budgeting?

 

 

 

And of course everyone on a benefit is there by choice and does not want to work.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


7212 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3759


  Reply # 1583316 30-Jun-2016 13:16
2 people support this post
Send private message

Geektastic:

 

Rikkitic:

 

I think this is a fantastic gesture and I think it just reaffirms what a decent, down to earth person she is. But it again raises the question of just whose responsibility it is to make sure kids don't go hungry in the first place. Before all the Tories start howling about bad parents who just want to spend their money on dope and alcohol, I do agree that the parents should be responsible for this in the first instance. My question is where the responsibly lies if the parents cannot or will not live up to this. Should the government step in? Should public money be spent on this? Is it the duty of a humane society to make sure children are fed regardless of whose fault it is? And if it is, why are there hungry children in this country at all? Seems to me like someone isn't doing their job.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have to be pretty careful. Otherwise you simply make us all liable for costs that properly belong to the parents. I for one am not interested in accepting those costs.

 

 

 

 

But I'm sure you're 100% keen on reaping the benefits of living in a safe well-functioning society. 

 

Perhaps not.


6690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 576

Trusted

  Reply # 1583320 30-Jun-2016 13:35
One person supports this post
Send private message

As others have said, this is the endless argument, of which contributors beliefs and personalities will see them fall somewhere along the scale of the government should provide everything through to complete outright user pays.  The extremes are just that, so the answer will most likely fall somewhere in the middle. 

We are a pretty cruisey country though, in that the likes of ACC will cover your injuries from genuine accidents through to teh results of complete and utter stupidity.  I suspect the solution is not to ignore the immediate issue of hungry children, but to also have a parallel plan to break the cycle to improve the situation in the long run.  The same approach could be applied to offending and prison sentences, where punishing illegal behaviour alone does nothing to break the cycle of families raising children who invariably end in prison themselves and think it's just normal.

Good on Lorde, it at least puts the spot light back on the situation.  I just hope the focus doesn't get lost in the political waffle. 


 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.