Crazy stuff to think that the government must provide milk for a kid

as opposed to the parents.

But here we are, the US of A, with 50 million people on food stamps and 90 million unemployed.

That doesn't count the IT guy, now working the drive thru window at Arby 's.

Only 63% of those able to work have jobs. Those who have career path jobs has to be under. 50%.

I blame Bush.

:hehe:

Exhbit #65894 proving your desire to ramble about politics is matched only by your distinct lack of knowledge thereof.

Step out of the Low Information bubble, and as Alf Garnett would say " You might learrrrrrn sumfink"

of me in interviews. Rampant lying, boasting and baseless claims. Most U.S. companies struggle to find good people. I'd rather take someone who only finished high school in Europe than someone with a degree in the U.S. The U.S. still has the smartest and most talented people, but following behind them is a mass of lazy, unmotivated, entitlement-focused plebs, who amaze me they found their way to the interview, much less passed any exam at a college.

Low standards = low quality people. That's why so much emphasis is put on Ivy League, if you outside of the top colleges you're by and large getting monkeys who aren't concerned with working their way up the ladder, piss and moan about their pay from day one and have a ****ty attitude.

What does someone have to do for you to consider them a 'lazy, unmotivated, entitlement-focused pleb'?

the open office. You know, small stuff that you can overlook. Don't get me wrong, I have dynamite U.S. employees but there's a thick middle layer of ****e in the job market who went to college for the sake of it and is angry they aren't going to be rich.

but fair enough.

The quality of milk was often very poor. Dairy companies would often recycle its old milk that was unsold instead of providing the fresh milk that it received the state money for. The highlight of the 11am third-of-a-pint bottle was what shape you got to punch the straw through the foil. Would it be a circle, a square, a diamond, or a cross? Unfortunately the milk itself was often disgustingly sour. I remember disliking it, and my dear Ms A, living on the other side of London at the time, had similar negative experiences and even got a note from her mum so she wouldn't have to drink it. She is still nervous about drinking milk to this day.

I think the idea was that the country could collectively help to provide nutrition to its children. It was introduced in 1944, restricted from secondary schools by a Labour govt in 68, and again for over-sevens in 1971, when MT was Education Secretary.

My point is that the real problem with it was not the concept of collective provision, but the abuse of the dairy companies that profited from it.

-ements. Everyone thinks they are entitled without working for it. I had a girl straight out of college ask for a six-figure salary. And, no, she wasn't from a college remotely like Harvard. She was from a community college, but "couldn't afford to work for less than 100k per year".

I wish she were the only example I had...........

And on top of that you take in the bulk purchase bargaining power of giving a kid a third of a pint of milk a day.

It's not 'as opposed to parents' either, it's not a zero sum game ffs, but for some kids it would be the only milk they get.

Dinged a couple of cortinas moving the float for the milkie when he was getting fags. Up at 4am, no risk of kiddie fiddlers. Those were the days :cloud9:

Mind you, I love a pint of milk even now.

http://www.stuffwelove.co.uk/images/humph2.gif

Very good marketing campaign from Unigate.

Ironically, Ms A's dad was a milkman, and she used to ride the float and help out on Saturdays.

It was more like cheese for most of the summer of 86.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEE0wI1kIG0

http://feelingmyage.co.uk/wp-content...binaskwith.jpg

My word. It's almost like you are up Norf or something.

If so, did you deliver in London? An apology may be in order :rubchin:

over honesty.

To f**k you up.

count to 10, do your breathing excercises.

When you get angry, you make poor choices.

you are such a douche.

The problem with giving government money to spend is that, in a democracy, and because it's not their "own" money, everybody regards them as a soft touch. And they're right. It is in their interest to be a soft touch because that’s how it makes its money.

You gave a great example; got some crap that no sensible person will buy? No worries, sell it to the government. Just let us have a few thousand more civil servants to administer it all.

Or need a few extra million quid to help fund the wife's Range Rover jones? We'll invent a "War on Terror" for you! That'll cost a fortune, you say? Who cares; it's not ours anyway. Except for the trifling billions we'll all skim off the top that is, of course.

If I asked you for billions of pounds, out of your own pocket, to invade somewhere with, you'd rightly tell me where to go. And even if you had flipped your lid and somehow agreed to it, you would make damn sure that every single penny of it was as well spent as it could be.

But government cannot do this because the people can always vote themselves free stuff. And the people doing the hardest voting will, of course, be the government itself. Which means people like me. And everybody else too. Especially those who are least in need of help from government.

The issue is not that there are people cheating the system; it is that now there is nobody who isn’t. In fact, the system itself is one gigantic cheat and we all have to be in on it in order to get anywhere in life.

I suppose we all must decide for ourselves whether government is better qualified to waste our money than we ourselves are.