it saddens me to see.. (editied to stop offence being caused)

edited to stop offence being caused. . It saddens me to see someone attacking benefit claimaints in such an angry and aggressive way.It is the governments aim to turn benefit claimant against benefit claimant and disabled person against disabled person.  It is their hope that by dividing us they will conquer us and win. They want to justify taking peoples right to benefits away. They are doing this already. Do people really think, are they naive enough to think that the government will make such concessions and make such distinctions as the type of benefit claimant. Crys of 'we didn't mean them' will be too late and not listened to. The homogenization of benefit claimants already happens so why would it change when universal credit comes in? The general consensus is that vouchers should be used for claimants to determine what they buy and where they buy it from. The conversations, now removed from this blog detailed a conversation where it was being argued this exact point. The thought that the state, or other people should determine what someone else can buy with their benefit is just wrong for me. Being a 'taxpayer' doesn't make a person different. We should all be in this together. Unfortunately, my argument that I should be able to go to marks and spencers and get my food fell on deaf ears.  Who amongst us seriously thinks that our beloved government will make it so benefits vouchers will be accepted in marks and spencers? I don't.

Benefits claimaints are right now being given vouchers in the event of a crisis. I can see this as a trial run to doing this for all benefit claimaints in the future, regardless of the reason why they are claiming or for any other reason. Right now, these vouchers are being restricted by shop and by item. If they come in to all claimaints, and its a real possibility that they could *anythings possible with this governement) I cant see this changing. Disabled people, all people need to be able to be in control of their own finances and their own futures. This is infantilising and degenratig a persons already low self esteem who finds themselves on benefits
.
This reminds me of a time when I was working part time in a supermarket some years ago now (pre impairment). It was about 15 years ago and yet its still there. People who come to this country as asylum seekers use this voucher system. They are only allowed to buy "essentials" and given "enough" for them to live on. I had to sit there and help this person decide what out of the meager shopping they had decide what to put back. They weren't spending this on much. It was value things, essentials. And yet it still wasnt enough money to get everything.

That is why I argue that despite people using the phrase "o, I didn't mean it like that" or "I dont mean that you should be affected" etc. that it still will affect everyone. Regardless of the reason for claiming benefit, regardless of everyones personal circumstances, the governement are already treating everyone THE SAME but not equally.

Although I disagree with people buying booze and cigs with their money (sorry I cant spell the proper words) I can forsee a time where similar videos of benefits claimaints such as myself being interviewed and the disgust and outrage at my shopping habits. It is not that different. Who should determine what a luxury is? Why should that be decided for you. As benefit claimaints we get 80 pounds a week. It really isnt that much, and if we choose to save up for a while and buy something someone might consider a luxury why shouldn;t we?

It is a scary time. When I recieved my council tax bill and I attempted to work out why I was being forced to pay 20% of it I felt bad. It made me sound like I had some sort of sense of entitlement and not that it would actually have a real detriment to my finances. It is easy to forget that if someone suggested 10 years ago that people on 70 pounds a week should be paying part of their council tax (when that is what the law says people need to live on as a miniumum) or part of their housing benefit because the house they have is the wrong fit, there would be uproar. Now, thanks to the drip drip drip media coverage of the scroungers and benefit claimaints it seems acceptable.

The original comment, and the start of the arguement (now deleted) read this:
"what a bitch! this is why people think everyone on benefits are just scroungers! benefits should be paid in the form of vouchers which cannot be used to buy luxuries like alcohol, cigs and sky tv etc. (link to video)