So the bold senator thinks that people on welfare shouldn't be allowed buy alcohol?

I suppose on the face of it that is a neat populist statement.  Why should we pay taxes so that some unemployed wonk can go fill himself with a [not so] cheap slab of lager cans?  It is precisely the sort of comment that will gain traction amongst the sheeple who will start baying on Farcebook that "something must be done".

But think about it.

Where does the welfare cash come from?  The public purse.  Where does the dear senator get his fancy salary from?  The public purse!  So the senator had better be damned careful as he himself is in effect a welfare recipient.  How would he feel if he were told what he could and could not buy with his salary?  In fact how would he even feel if the subsidies were withdrawn from the Dáil bar?  If anything, the welfare recipient has the greater right to curb the senator's spending as the senator is a public servant and therefore an employee.

This whole business of people in power reckoning they have the right to control how we live our lives is completely out of hand.  They somehow decide that alcohol is a luxury and therefore certain people shouldn't have it.  What next?  Should they be allowed televisions or Sky subscriptions?  Should they be allowed cars?  Maybe they shouldn't be given any welfare at all and just be given [gubmint and health approved] food parcels?

I see they are encroaching into private homes again, as from midnight it is now illegal to slap a child.  Whatever the rights and wrongs of slapping, the law should not encroach into the private home.  Just ask yourself what might come next.  They have created the precedent of banning smacking, so now your home is not your own domain any more.  Will they lay down laws on what food you can eat?  We know they would love to ban smoking in the private home, and are they going to quote the smacking thing as precedent?

Norris is stepping over the line with his comments.  Even suggesting what people do with their money is wrong.

When are people going to realise that the gubmint think it owns them?

It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on Tumblr


Creeping paralysis — 14 Comments

  1. Should they be allowed cars?

    The German govern-mental tried that one, oh some 20 years back….until they realised that 1.anyone wanting to find any form of gainful employment needed to have a car and 2. us benefit scroungers just registered their car in someone else’s name…sometimes we even asked that someone else first cos we was brought up to be polite, like.

    • "sometimes we even asked that someone else first cos we was brought up to be polite, like."  Heh!  Or else just "borrow" their car [when they're not looking]?

      • That happens a lot over here as well-borrowing cars and such. I read about in the police and court reports in our local newspaper all the time.

        Whe I was a dastardly teenager(you know, the quiet one that came up with the really great plans) myself and a few of my friends once took and unlocked car and pushed it over to the next block into someone's driveway. Parked it real nice too.

        Of course, it was a car that was made before locking steering wheels…

  2. If somebody on benefits buys alcohol and tobacco, then surely most of that is going back to the government in taxes? If they buy other stuff there's not as much tax going back. Thinking about it, maybe all benefits should be spent on alcohol and tobacco to save taxpayers money.

    • There is an argument that because tax and excise are so high, the buyer is in fact subsidising his or her own income and therefore should be lauded and encouraged?

  3. people on welfare like the the blind, disabled and old age pension. maybe he had the retired guards, nurses and teachers in mind

    • Why wait until these people retire?  They are all being paid from the public purse so it is only right that they shouldn't have any luxuries at all?

  4. I'll fix all of this when I return as the next Lord Lieuftenant of Ireland. I'll put them all back in the fields where they can smoke and drink as much as they like as long as they meet the quota. They'll be happy. I'll arrange some crossroads for them so they can sing and dance as they love to do, the little populatory rascals.

  5. I'm guessing the senator isn't offering to abolish all the free, taxpayer funded alcohol at government bashes any time soon?

    Years back, I was secretary to the town's youth club and we wanted some politicos for the official opening of a new scheme we were quite proud of. I was actually ordered by the Department of Education to make sure there was a separate reception (in a separate room to the one for kids and parents) where the politicians and department officials could enjoy 'a selection of good quality wines and spirits'. When I argued that this wasn't the best example to set kids on alcohol I was told bluntly that if we didn't lay it on they weren't coming and the Minister would not ceremonially open the scheme.

    This is the same bunch of public service piss-heads who, within a year of making that demand to a bunch of decent parents and kids, set up a 'Chief Minister's Task Force on Alcohol and Drugs' to help us iggerunt peasants cope with all our problem drinking.

    • We all know it's a case of "do as they say and not as they do".  Legislators are always above the law and also immune from all those deadly lifestyles which plague the peasantry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting