The post you are reporting:
Barry, you brought a point up about how the Government could cut spending to a higher extent elsewhere so as not to cut spending on elderly or disadvantaged people in need of special financial aid and who wish to remain in their own homes.
I agreed to Gov's spending cuts on warplanes and the Trident nuclear sub programme, but not to denying disadvantaged people the right to receive some extra money in order to receive some help.
In the past I have mentioned on the Forum that Henry VIII did wrong in abolishing the monastary system, which employed many people directly and indirecly, and assured help for the needy, at least to an extent. To tax the monastaries on some of their surplus gold and silver treasures was fair enough, if this had been to the advantage of the general economy or even just the poor and needy, but not to do away with the whole establishment.
Today, as in the past, we need people who are dedicated to helping the disadvantaged, and this goes beyond strict financial reasoning. It has to do with charity, and Christian Faith.
People who help may also require a wage, otherwise they may not be able to support themselves, which is essentially why monastaries had estates, so that monks and nuns could also support themselves as well as help others.
Today, there is not that much going by way of ecclesiastical presence in society, so the State should consider some forms of payment to the disadvantaged as charity. They need it, and I strongly disagree with any dicision to sacrifice the rights and needs of disadvantaged people.
There is no room here for inflicting hardships and injustice on disadvantaged people. The answer from me is No! This is my democratic opinion. And it will remain a No!
But believe me, I am for abolishing on the spot all State finances to 'the family'. They have enough money of their own to look after themselves and to employ still many to look after them. But I wouldn't be as cruel as to have them carted off to a home if they became disadvantaged.