TEENAGE parents will lose welfare payments as soon as six months after the birth of their child under a "tough love" scheme in the Federal Budget.

The move is designed to tackle the endemic problem of Australia's 11,000 teenage parents being stuck in a life of welfare dependency.

Under a trial scheme to be announced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard today, teenage parents risk losing payments of up to $625.90 a fortnight from January 1, 2012, if they fail to meet new study and work requirements.

The move is part of a series of Budget measures to force people off welfare and help create some of the 500,000 new jobs promised by the Government.

Queensland has 3186 teenage parents, which is a higher proportion than other states and almost the same number as in New South Wales.

The scheme will be trialled in 10 centres around Australia, with one in Brisbane and one in regional Queensland.



The scheme will impose much tougher mutual obligation requirements on teenagers than older parents who receive welfare payments to create opportunities for young parents.

Centrelink data shows more than 80 per cent of teenage parents have not completed Year 12 and about half have been on welfare for at least a year before giving birth.

Only 6 per cent of teenage parents earn some income from work and only 15 per cent study while receiving welfare payments.

At the moment parents face requirements to look for work when their child turns six but the government fears this is too long to wait for teenagers who may be in their mid 20s before they consider finishing school.

Under the trial, teenage parents will be forced to plan education and work activities when their baby turns six months old and must return to study by the time the child is 12 months old.

Parents will be forced to finish school or study vocational courses.

They will also have to enrol their children in preschool in a move designed to stop a cycle of disadvantage.

The move comes after Deloitte Access Economics predicted the Budget bottom line would be about $19 billion worse than previously thought across this year and next.

The forecasters predicted a $51.4 billion deficit in 2010-11 and $21.7 billion next year, returning to a $710 million surplus by the Government's target of 2012-13.

I wonder if we should still dish out the baby bonus to them.  What do you think Verge?.   :)

As the useless cow gets it wrong yet AGAIN.

The G-G should sack her, NOW.

And, if not, the G-G needs to be sacked.

(Yes, I KNOW that can only be done by the
Queen. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen).

Gough Witless laid the foundation stones for the development of a totally welfare dependant underclass, the ALP has since then, compounded the problem.  The ALP`s creation, and propogation of the great masses of welfare dependant "living dead", was originally designed to ensure an almost 100% ALP voting base.  This was/is one of the most brutal and senseless, self serving acts of our history.

It all adds up.

The highest unemployment is among this age group. They cut the unemployment figures by about 25%.

No payments, no jobs....pushing to up the armed forces numbers, they'll take anyone. They're in desperate need of new rape victims after the bad rap of late.

Do the breastfeeding mums get to take their babies to war? Prams on the front line? although some of those prams are built like tanks.

Oh! the poor grannies, having the next generation forced on them.

mavisdavis wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 8:44am:

Gough Witless laid the foundation stones for the development of a totally welfare dependant underclass, the ALP has since then, compounded the problem.  The ALP`s creation, and propogation of the great masses of welfare dependant "living dead", was originally designed to ensure an almost 100% ALP voting base.  This was/is one of the most brutal and senseless, self serving acts of our history.

No.

Welfare was there LONG before Whitlam came to power.

The REAL issue is that society has become FAR more greedy and
selfish, and far less caring than was the case in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

And it now thinks that the poor are somehow 'undeserving', or
that being poor is somehow the poor's own fault.

It is wrong. Very wrong. And I hope I live to see the day when
that attitude comes back to bite society with a vengeance.

Kat wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:19am:

mavisdavis wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 8:44am: Gough Witless laid the foundation stones for the development of a totally welfare dependant underclass, the ALP has since then, compounded the problem.  The ALP`s creation, and propogation of the great masses of welfare dependant "living dead", was originally designed to ensure an almost 100% ALP voting base.  This was/is one of the most brutal and senseless, self serving acts of our history. No. Welfare was there LONG before Whitlam came to power. The REAL issue is that society has become FAR more greedy and selfish, and far less caring than was the case in the 60s, 70s and 80s. And it now thinks that the poor are somehow 'undeserving', or that being poor is somehow the poor's own fault. It is wrong. Very wrong. And I hope I live to see the day when that attitude comes back to bite society with a vengeance.

Kat, the ALP grew the population of the permanently unemployable.  They, for their own political purposes, greatly magnified the ranks of the "living dead".

There was a time, when a man's wage could support a whole family - with little or no Govt subsidies...

There came a time, when employers and Govts colluded to create a situation whereby remuneration was no longer set at a level that would provide a 'living wage' for a whole family...

Over time it came to pass, that wages were paid on the assumption of providing for the individual wage earner...

Eventually it came to be, that wages were paid on the expectation that the Govt would pick up the tab to cover the gap betwixt what employers were prepared to pay to workers - and what workers and their families needed to survive...

Check out the big business union and right wing think tank submissions to Howard/Costello's so-called 'Fair Pay Commission' and Rudd/Gillard's replacement body - and you will see that these sections of our economy actively and self-servingly promote the use of welfare payments to subsidise below-subsistence wages...

mavisdavis wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:28am:

Kat, the ALP grew the population of the permanently unemployable.  They, for their own political purposes, greatly magnified the ranks of the "living dead".

So, Mavis, what did Howard and Costello do in the 12 years of record boom time that they were at the helm - why didn't they remedy the issues you claim were caused by their Lab predecessors!?

What did the Libs do, to improve the education and training opportunities of those you mention - and to prevent the associated skills shortages!?

Why did the Libs reduce Govt funding for public education and training, increase the number of fee-paying students (including foreign ones) and increase the importation of foreign workers!?

Equitist wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:35am:

mavisdavis wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 9:28am: Kat, the ALP grew the population of the permanently unemployable.  They, for their own political purposes, greatly magnified the ranks of the "living dead". So, Mavis, what did Howard and Costello do in the 12 years of record boom time that they were at the helm - why didn't they remedy the issues you claim were caused by their Lab predecessors!? What did the Libs do, to improve the education and training opportunities of those you mention - and to prevent the associated skills shortages!? Why did the Libs reduce Govt funding for public education and training, increase the number of fee-paying students (including foreign ones) and increase the importation of foreign workers!?

It`s not an issue of skills shortages, it`s an issue of "generational motivational defecit", I don`t know what you expected Howard to do about this entrenched problem?  Soak dole cheques in rat poison perhaps?  

Equitist wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:30am:

There was a time, when a man's wage could support a whole family - with little or no Govt subsidies... There came a time, when employers and Govts colluded to create a situation whereby remuneration was no longer set at a level that would provide a 'living wage' for a whole family... Over time it came to pass, that wages were paid on the assumption of providing for the individual wage earner... Eventually it came to be, that wages were paid on the expectation that the Govt would pick up the tab to cover the gap betwixt what employers were prepared to pay to workers - and what workers and their families needed to survive... Check out the big business union and right wing think tank submissions to Howard/Costello's so-called 'Fair Pay Commission' and Rudd/Gillard's replacement body - and you will see that these sections of our economy actively and self-servingly promote the use of welfare payments to subsidise below-subsistence wages...

Us women were the silly ones who demanded to be thrown into the slave machine.  Big business is still laughing!

mavisdavis wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:40am:

Equitist wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 9:35am: mavisdavis wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 9:28am: Kat, the ALP grew the population of the permanently unemployable.  They, for their own political purposes, greatly magnified the ranks of the "living dead". So, Mavis, what did Howard and Costello do in the 12 years of record boom time that they were at the helm - why didn't they remedy the issues you claim were caused by their Lab predecessors!? What did the Libs do, to improve the education and training opportunities of those you mention - and to prevent the associated skills shortages!? Why did the Libs reduce Govt funding for public education and training, increase the number of fee-paying students (including foreign ones) and increase the importation of foreign workers!? It`s not an issue of skills shortages, it`s an issue of "generational motivational defecit", I don`t know what you expected Howard to do about this entrenched problem?  Soak dole cheques in rat poison perhaps?

Howard and Costello presided over a record boom period: they had ample resources available to them to plan for the future - by improving the quality and quantity of education and training for millions of low-skilled Aussies - yet they squandered the opportunity on cynical vote-buying WEALTHfare and high-end tax cuts...and imported record numbers of non-English-speaking foreign workers and fee-paying students!

Try as you might, you cannot erase from history, the socio-economically-reckless culpability of Howard and Costello...

Well, the Howard govt led to the enormous number of people on DSPs, anything to get unemployed figures down.

Personally, I'd rather kids had their mum than daycare. You don't get love in daycare. Kindness maybe, but not love.

Right about the living wage of old. My mum's parents brought up 7 girls and 3 boys on the one wage. Of course there was no such thing as working class home ownership then. They always lived in rented places, but then rent was about 10 to 20% of my grandad's wage, not the 50-60% it is now.

d.

I am relived that Gillard has just announced further details on the proposals - including that this will be trialled at 10 sites first - and that this will be part of a far more comprehensive program than had been reported up-front...

Jesus, its hard enough dealing with a 5 month old.

My wife is raising our daughter, spending countless hours with her on her development and wellbeing, does the 3am feed every night and looks after our house.

If anyone out of us has a full time job its her.  Kids are hard work, you cant just stick them in a chair and disappear for the day.

My wife would spend hours a day with her on things like reading to her, and managing her development in things like strength etc.

I think its good they want to help teenage mums get an education, but threatening to take welfare off them in exchange for it is obsurd.  I dont see them doing it to any other group.

Just another government attack on a soft target.  Anyone who undervalues the work of a mother needs a solid kick in the backside.

Verge wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 10:49am:

Jesus, its hard enough dealing with a 5 month old. My wife is raising our daughter, spending countless hours with her on her development and wellbeing, does the 3am feed every night and looks after our house. If anyone out of us has a full time job its her.  Kids are hard work, you cant just stick them in a chair and disappear for the day. My wife would spend hours a day with her on things like reading to her, and managing her development in things like strength etc. I think its good they want to help teenage mums get an education, but threatening to take welfare off them in exchange for it is obsurd.  I dont see them doing it to any other group. Just another government attack on a soft target.  Anyone who undervalues the work of a mother needs a solid kick in the backside.

I agree.
We have a 2 year old and a 7 month old.
There is absolutely no way my wife could go back to work right now.

I always go by the fact that people who don't have children, don't understand what it entails to have them.
We never really had a clue pre late 2008.

It is noticeable Julia Gillard is neither married nor has children.

Verge wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 10:49am:

I think its good they want to help teenage mums get an education, but threatening to take welfare off them in exchange for it is obsurd.  I dont see them doing it to any other group. Just another government attack on a soft target.  Anyone who undervalues the work of a mother needs a solid kick in the backside.

Most young mothers would feel the same way about separating from their baby as mature mothers would. Going back to school straight away is almost as bad as going back to work. Babies and mothers need each other at least for the first few months, if not years. It's a sad indictment of our society that it's taken for granted that mothers and babies should be separated so quickly after birth.

One excellent solution would be to stop the baby bonus - that would dramatically reduce the incentive for many young girls to have babies.

I don't think this new proposal is going to be as easy as Gillard thinks it is.

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 10:56am:

Verge wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 10:49am: I think its good they want to help teenage mums get an education, but threatening to take welfare off them in exchange for it is obsurd.  I dont see them doing it to any other group. Just another government attack on a soft target.  Anyone who undervalues the work of a mother needs a solid kick in the backside. Most young mothers would feel the same way about separating from their baby as mature mothers would. Going back to school straight away is almost as bad as going back to work. Babies and mothers need each other at least for the first few months, if not years. It's a sad indictment of our society that it's taken for granted that mothers and babies should be separated so quickly. One excellent solution would be to stop the baby bonus - that would dramatically reduce the incentive for many young girls to have babies. I don't think this new proposal is going to be as easy as Gillard thinks it is.

I remember reading that teenage pregnancies had not increased in the last 5 years from the prior 5, and had gone down.

I dont think the baby bonus has had an impact since there has been an actual decrease.

Education on things like safe sex is far more important.

Have you ever noticed simple things like income tax and then budgeting etc are not taught in schools?  If kids had a better understanding of things like mortgages, banking, income tax, and then household budgeting and costs we would be able to do more for them then letting them loose.

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 10:56am:

One excellent solution would be to stop the baby bonus - that would dramatically reduce the incentive for many young girls to have babies. .

Do you really seriously think people have children just to get $5k in welfare???

We spent our baby bonus within months of our girl being born.

Now think through a child's life -
Clothes
Meals
School Fees
Holiday expense
Healthcare expense
Additional living expense in the home

It runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars!!

Now if someone has a child for $5k - then bugger me they are either dumb or well, no they are just dumb.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

mantra wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 10:56am: One excellent solution would be to stop the baby bonus - that would dramatically reduce the incentive for many young girls to have babies. . Do you really seriously think people have children just to get $5k in welfare??? We spent our baby bonus within months of our girl being born. Now think through a child's life - Clothes Meals School Fees Holiday expense Healthcare expense Additional living expense in the home It runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars!! Now if someone has a child for $5k - then bugger me they are either dumb or well, no they are just dumb.

Too many people don't look that far ahead Andrei. The word is not dumb, it is ignorant.

Deborahmac09 wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:06am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 11:00am: mantra wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 10:56am: One excellent solution would be to stop the baby bonus - that would dramatically reduce the incentive for many young girls to have babies. . Do you really seriously think people have children just to get $5k in welfare??? We spent our baby bonus within months of our girl being born. Now think through a child's life - Clothes Meals School Fees Holiday expense Healthcare expense Additional living expense in the home It runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars!! Now if someone has a child for $5k - then bugger me they are either dumb or well, no they are just dumb. Too many people don't look that far ahead Andrei. The word is not dumb, it is ignorant.

As evidenced by the family we saw in the furniture shop who clearly didn't have a lot of money and we're purchasing a suite for $5k all on 100% buy now, pay later credit.

Silly, silly people.

I don't know why people live like they do.

<<Do you really seriously think people have children just to get $5k in welfare???

We spent our baby bonus within months of our girl being born.>>
................................................................................

You said you used the baby bonus for your first born to renew your golf club membership....remember? and if you had a second baby soon after, and considering it was also a girl, you would need very little in the way of baby items.

Your memory is letting you down Walter  :-[

[quote author=pansi1951 link=1304542157/15#21 date=1304557913]<<Do you really seriously think people have children just to get $5k in welfare???

We spent our baby bonus within months of our girl being born.>>
................................................................................

You said you used the baby bonus for your first born to renew your golf club membership....remember? and if you had a second baby soon after, and considering it was also a girl, you would need very little in the way of baby items.

Your memory is letting you down Walter  :-[/quote]


Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
I was joking, jeez.

The golf membership did come up similar times but the baby bonus was used to buy baby clothes/items etc.
Bear in mind, before we were a working couple who had no children.
How many cots, baby seats, baby clothes etc do you think we had????

Why are you so against people getting help and assistance?????

Our second child was born in the United States in 2010 and we received no baby bonus (nor applied) for that one.

We have received ONE bonus of $5k from the Family Assistance office when we had our first little girl in 2008.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

mantra wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 10:56am: One excellent solution would be to stop the baby bonus - that would dramatically reduce the incentive for many young girls to have babies. . Do you really seriously think people have children just to get $5k in welfare??

Yes - it's a well known fact that people have babies because of the bonus.  Andrei - if you hadn't received that baby bonus - you would have surived quite well and still given your children the best money could buy.

On the other hand there are plenty of young girls - children really, junkies etc. who carry their baby to full term just to get that $5,000. Quite often the baby is discarded or neglected when the money has been blown on rubbish for the girl and hits for the junky.

If you have a baby it should be because it's planned for and wanted even though you can't provide it with a state of the art stroller or a private school. You can give it the loving home it deserves without the pretty wrapping paper.

<<Why are you so against people getting help and assistance?????>>
.................................................................................

You change the script more than Barack Obama. I'm not against people getting assistance. I'm against wealthfare. I'm against the government supporting people who don't need support.

Quote:

Why are you so against people getting help and assistance?????

Anyone who hasn't had a child in the last 5-10 years is against the baby bonus.  It seems if they're not getting it, noone should!

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:21am:

Quote: Why are you so against people getting help and assistance????? Anyone who hasn't had a child in the last 5-10 years is against the baby bonus.  It seems if they're not getting it, noone should!

A sad and true fact.
A lot of people seem to be against things, that they don't get.

I think it is the "What about me?" view of the world.

Quote:

[quote]Anyone who hasn't had a child in the last 5-10 years is against the baby bonus.  It seems if they're not getting it, noone should!

A sad and true fact.
A lot of people seem to be against things, that they don't get.

I think it is the "What about me?" view of the world.[/quote]

That's where you have got it wrong. You can see the difference in the care of children raised without the bonus. You lot have a welfare mentality regardless of how wealthy you claim to be.

I have children old enough to have babies if that's what they wanted. Fortunately they aren't tempted by a bribe of $5,000 although many of their peers have been.

The teenage pregnancies in most areas have escalated and I have never seen such mass produced, uneducated, neglected and poverty stricken children before. In a few years the state schools will not be able to cope with the influx of dysfunctional children - nor will society.

Look at the long term ramifications - not just the immediate dollar sign and the goodies you can buy with it.

We had children when I was 31 and my wife was 30.

If there had been no $5k bonus (and there wasn't for us most of the time in the UK) - we would still have picked that time.

We owned a home, we had built up considerable savings and we correctly placed to provide for the child.

Now you cannot tell me that people would opt to have a baby, when before they weren't, just because they will get $5k.

That's simply rubbish.
That is not how people live.

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:28am:

Quote: [quote]Anyone who hasn't had a child in the last 5-10 years is against the baby bonus.  It seems if they're not getting it, noone should! A sad and true fact. A lot of people seem to be against things, that they don't get. I think it is the "What about me?" view of the world.

That's where you have got it wrong. You can see the difference in the care of children raised without the bonus. You lot have a welfare mentality regardless of how wealthy you claim to be.

I have children old enough to have babies if that's what they wanted. Fortunately they aren't tempted by a bribe of $5,000 although many of their peers have been.

The teenage pregnancies in most areas have escalated and I have never seen such mass produced, uneducated, neglected and poverty stricken children before. In a few years the state schools will not be able to cope with the influx of dysfunctional children - nor will society.

Look at the long term ramifications - not just the immediate dollar sign and the goodies you can buy with it.[/quote]


I'm afraid the facts don't agree with your claims that the baby bonus has massively inflated the birth rate among 'undesirables'.

But I'm more intersted in this claim:  


Quote:

You can see the difference in the care of children raised without the bonus

Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare?  Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes?

Quote:

Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare?  Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes?

Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years?

Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages.

I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need?

I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time.

In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control.

There is some truth in what Mantra says on that one.

My view in 2011, is now that the eldest is a lot more active - to maybe try and get home a little bit earlier and check my blackberry a little less on the weekends.

It's hard though, today's world doesn't necessarily have the demands that my parents and grandparents enjoyed.

I guess my point on that one is that you're not going to change how things are from a work demands perspective now.

The world is smaller, the communications are so much better, we have demands from a myriad of people that never existed before.

How many of our grandparents would have received requests on a saturday morning because their bosses are sitting in a timezone where its friday afternoon?

It's just how it is now.
It's about formulating policies which work in with that rather than try and oppose it.

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

Quote: Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare?  Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes? Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years? Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages. I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need? I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time. In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control.

True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth.  You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.  
Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price.  But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them.

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:00pm:

mantra wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 11:45am: Quote: Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare?  Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes? Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years? Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages. I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need? I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time. In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control. True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth.  You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.   Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price.  But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them.

Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:12pm:

... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:00pm: mantra wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 11:45am: Quote: Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare?  Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes? Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years? Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages. I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need? I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time. In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control. True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth.  You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.   Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price.  But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them. Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I can blame baby boomers for far more than my own shortcomings.  Why?  Cos it's true.

Baby Boomers do have an awful lot to answer for.


Who is it that never bothered to save for their own retirement and now expect the rest of us to pay for them?

The superannuation savings of baby boomers as a whole is appalling.

A wasteful generation.

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:15pm:

FRED. wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:12pm: ... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:00pm: mantra wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 11:45am: Quote: Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare?  Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes? Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years? Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages. I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need? I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time. In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control. True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth.  You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.   Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price.  But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them. Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I can blame baby boomers for far more than my own shortcomings.  Why?  Cos it's true.

Typical looser  SOME ONE ELSES FAULT   ;) ;)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

Baby Boomers do have an awful lot to answer for. Who is it that never bothered to save for their own retirement and now expect the rest of us to pay for them? The superannuation savings of baby boomers as a whole is appalling. A wasteful generation.

So tell me about the history of superannuation in australia   ;)

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:18pm:

... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:15pm: FRED. wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:12pm: ... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:00pm: mantra wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 11:45am: Quote: Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare?  Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes? Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years? Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages. I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need? I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time. In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control. True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth.  You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.   Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price.  But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them. Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I can blame baby boomers for far more than my own shortcomings.  Why?  Cos it's true. Typical looser  SOME ONE ELSES FAULT   ;) ;)

Typical LOSER - blames others for daring to mention the mess you made.

I would mention that we're lucky enough to be able to survive on my income alone - but then how would you turn it around onto me?

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:25pm:

FRED. wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:18pm: ... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:15pm: FRED. wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:12pm: ... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:00pm: mantra wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 11:45am: Quote: Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare?  Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes? Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years? Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages. I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need? I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time. In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control. True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth.  You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.   Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price.  But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them. Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I can blame baby boomers for far more than my own shortcomings.  Why?  Cos it's true. Typical looser  SOME ONE ELSES FAULT   ;) ;) Typical LOSER - blames others for daring to mention the mess you made. I would mention that we're lucky enough to be able to survive on my income alone - but then how would you turn it around onto me?

And my family like my parents before have been well able to surport ourselves on one income .Without baby bonuses,first home buyers grants,child care surport,  

FRED. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:38pm:

... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:25pm: FRED. wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:18pm: ... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:15pm: FRED. wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:12pm: ... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:00pm: mantra wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 11:45am: Quote: Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare?  Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes? Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years? Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages. I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need? I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time. In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control. True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth.  You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.   Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price.  But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them. Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I can blame baby boomers for far more than my own shortcomings.  Why?  Cos it's true. Typical looser  SOME ONE ELSES FAULT   ;) ;) Typical LOSER - blames others for daring to mention the mess you made. I would mention that we're lucky enough to be able to survive on my income alone - but then how would you turn it around onto me? And my family like my parents before have been well able to surport ourselves on one income .Without baby bonuses,first home buyers grants,child care surport,

I'm sure you did - but did a house cost 8x your annnual income back then?  Nooo....but I'm sure you'll find a way to blame that on 'the youth of today'

... wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 12:42pm:

FRED. wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:38pm: ... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:25pm: FRED. wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:18pm: ... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:15pm: FRED. wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:12pm: ... wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 12:00pm: mantra wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 11:45am: Quote: Seeing as how all kids born in australia in the last ~10 years have attarcated the bonus, how can you compare?  Living was a lot more affordable pre-baby bonus, yes? Living was more affordable because we consumed less. Do you believe that just because a child momentarily has the best that money can buy that it will sustain it for the next 18 years? Howard introduced the baby bonus, not just because it was his usual porkbarrelling style, but because he allowed an open slather property market for foreign investors with all sorts of concessions - which immediately created a real estate bubble. Properties tripled in value during Howard's reign and so did mortgages. I say children were cared for more because there was less demand for both parents to work full time and at such a frenetic pace. Today for working parents - it's up at the crack of dawn, dropping the child off for long day care and at the end of the day when a parent is exhausted - can they offer that child the care they so desperately need? I've heard many children say they only want one thing - and that's for their parents to give them a little of their time. In the last decade or so - consumerism has become rampant, but at what cost to families. The baby bonus was in my view, a stop gap appeasement as the weight of debt began crippling prospective parents - but it has been abused and is now out of control. True, and I see rampant consumerism as a real problem, but denying help to new families won't undo the mess that the baby boomers have created in their rapacious quest for wealth.  You can't blame young families for doing what they have to do, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.   Children no longer take priority, in most cases out of necessity - I'm sure if people could afford to survive on 1 income, and have the other partner look after the children, they would, but unfortunately, when just the rent, let alone a mortgage costs half the average pay packet, people need to make ends meet somehow, and it is the children who pay the price.  But so long as the gubbermint can say 'the conomy grw by X%' it doesn't matter to them. Just love the way you blame the baby boomers for your own short comings .. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I can blame baby boomers for far more than my own shortcomings.  Why?  Cos it's true. Typical looser  SOME ONE ELSES FAULT   ;) ;) Typical LOSER - blames others for daring to mention the mess you made. I would mention that we're lucky enough to be able to survive on my income alone - but then how would you turn it around onto me? And my family like my parents before have been well able to surport ourselves on one income .Without baby bonuses,first home buyers grants,child care surport,   I'm sure you did - but did a house cost 8x your annnual income back then?  Nooo....but I'm sure you'll find a way to blame that on 'the youth of today'

No I blame govements for not releasing land to build on,  ;)

#

   Its only a start, they need to give a clear message to the young girls that having babies is a serious job, not a game. The government should only support one baby not multiple births (let them have one mistake). The baby bonus has made it to easy for them to keep having children, a lot of the time to several fathers. Once upon a time we would find a partner and our children where planned, and we would work to provide to the best of our ability, for our children, not today NO PLANNING REQUIRED. Now these teenagers just think the government support them indefinately. That's why we are seeing second and third generation welfare recipiants. Stop the $5,000 bonus as well, if you carn't efford to bring them into this world yourself - dont expect the tax payers to. My husband and I are tax payers and both work we have raised our daughter without any assistance. We put things in the correct order 1) bought a house. 2) Planned for our child. 3)Went back to work and only received the minimum payments for childcare from the government. I dont feel guily because I went to work to pay my taxes to receive my small payments. We have to STOP paying for these lazy teenagers.

Comment
#
Criselee of Central Coast Posted at 9:28 AM Today

   well thats fine- But where are the jobs!!!! Must we continue to have our kids in childcare for an extra 4 hours a day due to the fact many of us commute. For example, apart from working a 8 hour day most of us need at least an hour to and from work, So thats 10 hours of childcare a day!Even if you travel locally on the Central Coast- It will take you an Hour at peak times to get from Wyong to Gosford. Those of us travelling to Sydney- well dont get me started!!!!So studying is a great idea- But once you finish- Where are the JOBS- Not on the Central Coast!!!! Not in Newcastle or Woolongong

mantra wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 11:20am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 11:00am: mantra wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 10:56am: One excellent solution would be to stop the baby bonus - that would dramatically reduce the incentive for many young girls to have babies. . Do you really seriously think people have children just to get $5k in welfare?? Yes - it's a well known fact that people have babies because of the bonus.   On the other hand there are plenty of young girls - children really, junkies etc. who carry their baby to full term just to get that $5,000. Quite often the baby is discarded or neglected when the money has been blown on rubbish for the girl and hits for the junky.

Mantra, the stat of people who have the baby for the $5k would be so small its not even material.

Like Gillard has said, there is currently 11,000 teenage women on welfare payments.  11,000.

There has been something like 279,000 baby bonuses a YEAR dished out.

Thats not 11,000 a year, thats the total number.

Hardly massive numbers, and Im sure of those teenagers many were as a result of an accident.

And I dont think in the adults there would be a raving number of people doing it for the money.

Its just a beat up by people who watch today tonight and believe the bogan living in the caravan park with 5 kids to 5 different fathers.

Why shouldn't the Fathers pay - why me - the taxpayer?

If they put in in they should have some responsibility
after they pull it out - especially when condoms are easy to obtain.

They didn't use contraception & now I have to pay?????????

Bobby. wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:04pm:

Why shouldn't the Fathers pay - why me - the taxpayer? If they put in in they should have some responsibility after they pull it out - especially when condoms are easy to obtain. They didn't use contraception & now I have to pay?????????

Paying token amounts for the raising of the offspring of once-off sperm donors is probably the least of taxpayers' waste worries - and certainly not worth the long-term risks to the psycho-social well-being of the offspring and their mothers...

Quote:

Paying token amounts

I would say - enormous amounts of money.
Also -
some have many more kids - sometimes to many different Fathers -
& we idiots have to pick up the tab.
It's not fair.

Verge wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 10:49am:

Jesus, its hard enough dealing with a 5 month old. My wife is raising our daughter, spending countless hours with her on her development and wellbeing, does the 3am feed every night and looks after our house. If anyone out of us has a full time job its her.  Kids are hard work, you cant just stick them in a chair and disappear for the day. My wife would spend hours a day with her on things like reading to her, and managing her development in things like strength etc. I think its good they want to help teenage mums get an education, but threatening to take welfare off them in exchange for it is obsurd.  I dont see them doing it to any other group. Just another government attack on a soft target.  Anyone who undervalues the work of a mother needs a solid kick in the backside.

What has happened to society that they should find excuses for not doing rather than reasons for doing? Govt in this case is not attacking a soft target... they are seeking to empower them. They want teens to return to study and training so they are prepared for work when their youngest comes of school age. Brilliant idea I'm all for it.

I had my first child at 16 and my second at 17. There was no one to assist me with my educational needs. There was no such thing as affordable childcare. You were not encouraged to return to studies.

I had to wait until my youngest was 5 before I could enrol in full time studies to get my VCE. Six years is a long time to wait before being able to finish secondary school.

Knowledge empowers the person, builds self esteem and prepares a person for their working life. I wish they had such programs when I was a single mum on welfare... I could have been off welfare a lot sooner than I was. I could have been less disadvantaged and stigmatised.

Quote:

I had my first child at 16 and my second at 17.

And you expected & got the taxpayer to pick up the tab for your irresponsibility.
How could you bring children into the world when you
had no means to support them?

Sappho wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 7:49am:

Verge wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 10:49am: Jesus, its hard enough dealing with a 5 month old. My wife is raising our daughter, spending countless hours with her on her development and wellbeing, does the 3am feed every night and looks after our house. If anyone out of us has a full time job its her.  Kids are hard work, you cant just stick them in a chair and disappear for the day. My wife would spend hours a day with her on things like reading to her, and managing her development in things like strength etc. I think its good they want to help teenage mums get an education, but threatening to take welfare off them in exchange for it is obsurd.  I dont see them doing it to any other group. Just another government attack on a soft target.  Anyone who undervalues the work of a mother needs a solid kick in the backside. What has happened to society that they should find excuses for not doing rather than reasons for doing? Govt in this case is not attacking a soft target... they are seeking to empower them. They want teens to return to study and training so they are prepared for work when their youngest comes of school age. Brilliant idea I'm all for it. I had my first child at 16 and my second at 17. There was no one to assist me with my educational needs. There was no such thing as affordable childcare. You were not encouraged to return to studies. I had to wait until my youngest was 5 before I could enrol in full time studies to get my VCE. Six years is a long time to wait before being able to finish secondary school. Knowledge empowers the person, builds self esteem and prepares a person for their working life. I wish they had such programs when I was a single mum on welfare... I could have been off welfare a lot sooner than I was. I could have been less disadvantaged and stigmatised.

That may have worked for YOU, but forcing EVERYONE to do the same is pretty weak.

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 10:20am:

Quote: I had my first child at 16 and my second at 17. And you expected & got the taxpayer to pick up the tab for your irresponsibility. How could you bring children into the world when you had no means to support them?

Where does Sappho say anything about not being able to pay for them?

Sappho wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 7:49am:

Verge wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 10:49am: Jesus, its hard enough dealing with a 5 month old. My wife is raising our daughter, spending countless hours with her on her development and wellbeing, does the 3am feed every night and looks after our house. If anyone out of us has a full time job its her.  Kids are hard work, you cant just stick them in a chair and disappear for the day. My wife would spend hours a day with her on things like reading to her, and managing her development in things like strength etc. I think its good they want to help teenage mums get an education, but threatening to take welfare off them in exchange for it is obsurd.  I dont see them doing it to any other group. Just another government attack on a soft target.  Anyone who undervalues the work of a mother needs a solid kick in the backside. What has happened to society that they should find excuses for not doing rather than reasons for doing? Govt in this case is not attacking a soft target... they are seeking to empower them. They want teens to return to study and training so they are prepared for work when their youngest comes of school age. Brilliant idea I'm all for it. I had my first child at 16 and my second at 17. There was no one to assist me with my educational needs. There was no such thing as affordable childcare. You were not encouraged to return to studies. I had to wait until my youngest was 5 before I could enrol in full time studies to get my VCE. Six years is a long time to wait before being able to finish secondary school. Knowledge empowers the person, builds self esteem and prepares a person for their working life. I wish they had such programs when I was a single mum on welfare... I could have been off welfare a lot sooner than I was. I could have been less disadvantaged and stigmatised.

Im not doubting that, and Im all for helping people.

I just dont like the so called "help" being wrapped up with threats of taking away assistence.

This isnt teaching a man to fish, its forcing them too.

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 10:20am:

Quote: I had my first child at 16 and my second at 17. And you expected & got the taxpayer to pick up the tab for your irresponsibility. How could you bring children into the world when you had no means to support them?

Fking hell a child at 16 and one at 17???

Seriously, why on earth would anyone do that?

When I think of what I did between 16 and 31 (when we had our first) - if I had a child I wouldn't have been able to do any of it.

It's like throwing your life away.
Children having children. No, not good.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 11:19am:

Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 10:20am: Quote: I had my first child at 16 and my second at 17. And you expected & got the taxpayer to pick up the tab for your irresponsibility. How could you bring children into the world when you had no means to support them? Fking hell a child at 16 and one at 17??? Seriously, why on earth would anyone do that? When I think of what I did between 16 and 31 (when we had our first) - if I had a child I wouldn't have been able to do any of it. It's like throwing your life away. Children having children. No, not good.

Middle aged & Pensioners having children EVEN WORSE!
A females body is best for childbirth before the age of 30 after that there is increased risk for both mother & child.
Socially I am so glad we had our child at 25 not 35 & older like a lot of our friends, she's 16 this year can look after herself & we are begining to plan for the time when she leaves the nest.
Friends who looked down on us all those years ago now have toddlers & can look forward to chasing after kids well into their late 50's.
Yeah have fun with that, I'll send a postcard ;D

Yeah but mate I spent all of my 20's travelling the world and spending weekends in Paris, Madrid, Iceland, Norway, Dublin etc

How would we have done that with a child?

Well we could have, but not the sort of weekends we enjoyed.

Your 20s is a time to enjoy yourself, earn some good money as a couple then your 30s is the time for the family.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 11:44am:

Yeah but mate I spent all of my 20's travelling the world and spending weekends in Paris, Madrid, Iceland, Norway, Dublin etc How would we have done that with a child? Well we could have, but not the sort of weekends we enjoyed. Your 20s is a time to enjoy yourself, earn some good money as a couple then your 30s is the time for the family.

You have hardly lived a typical life have you mate.

Sappho should apologise to all of us poor taxpayers for
her irresponsible decisions that we have to pay for.

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 12:05pm:

Sappho should apologise to all of us poor taxpayers for her irresponsible decisions that we have to pay for.

Who says we are paying for it Bobby?

Verge wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 12:04pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 11:44am: Yeah but mate I spent all of my 20's travelling the world and spending weekends in Paris, Madrid, Iceland, Norway, Dublin etc How would we have done that with a child? Well we could have, but not the sort of weekends we enjoyed. Your 20s is a time to enjoy yourself, earn some good money as a couple then your 30s is the time for the family. You have hardly lived a typical life have you mate.

In what way?
1) Finish school
2) Go to uni
3) Start work, meet girl, live together
4) Both work, travel, have fun
5) Buy house, have children

Hardly out of the ordinary is it though?
Just thinking of my friends and that's exactly what they did too - and roughly same ages bizarrely enough.

What's not ordinary?

Verge wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 12:07pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 12:05pm: Sappho should apologise to all of us poor taxpayers for her irresponsible decisions that we have to pay for. Who says we are paying for it Bobby?

Who paid then? - the Father?

Bobby has a point.

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 12:54pm:

Verge wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 12:07pm: Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 12:05pm: Sappho should apologise to all of us poor taxpayers for her irresponsible decisions that we have to pay for. Who says we are paying for it Bobby? Who paid then? - the Father?

Maybe that child will grow up and pay the taxes that support YOU in your old age.

I think it's disgusting that you would even suggest she owes you an apology.  hang your head in shame.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 1:30pm:

Bobby has a point.

What point, there is no point.

Bobby knows nothing about what this person did or didnt claim from anywhere.

Its rude and arrogant in the highest order to expect someone to apoligise to another for their personal circumstance that they know nothing about.

If Sappho has raised good, well mannered kids who are respectful, I would say her contribution to society is more than substantial.

Verge wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 2:45pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 1:30pm: Bobby has a point. What point, there is no point. Bobby knows nothing about what this person did or didnt claim from anywhere. Its rude and arrogant in the highest order to expect someone to apoligise to another for their personal circumstance that they know nothing about. If Sappho has raised good, well mannered kids who are respectful, I would say her contribution to society is more than substantial.

What if she raised a new generation of feral kids using my money?

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 4:11pm:

Verge wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 2:45pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 1:30pm: Bobby has a point. What point, there is no point. Bobby knows nothing about what this person did or didnt claim from anywhere. Its rude and arrogant in the highest order to expect someone to apoligise to another for their personal circumstance that they know nothing about. If Sappho has raised good, well mannered kids who are respectful, I would say her contribution to society is more than substantial. What if she raised a new generation of feral kids using my money?

So what if she did?

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 4:11pm:

Verge wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 2:45pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 1:30pm: Bobby has a point. What point, there is no point. Bobby knows nothing about what this person did or didnt claim from anywhere. Its rude and arrogant in the highest order to expect someone to apoligise to another for their personal circumstance that they know nothing about. If Sappho has raised good, well mannered kids who are respectful, I would say her contribution to society is more than substantial. What if she raised a new generation of feral kids using my money?

For starters its not your money, in the same way as those who collect the dole are not spending your money.  If it was yours you would have control over it, which you dont.

Secondly, if she did, then thats her problem.

Its just my wish that all parents work hard to raise well mannered and respectful kids.

All taxable moneys is the welfare property of the working class not the Capitalist class.  Capitalist welfare is theft. 8-)

Verge.

Quote:

For starters its not your money, in the same way as those who collect the dole are not spending your money.  If it was yours you would have control over it, which you dont.

It is money that was stolen from me by the government & then
given to an irresponsible woman who had 2 kids while a teenager,
that she was unable to support herself.
If she would have kept her legs closed it wouldn't have happened.

Verge wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 4:31pm:

For starters its not your money, in the same way as those who collect the dole are not spending your money.  If it was yours you would have control over it, which you dont.

See, this is the same problem the government and the welfare recipients have; it is NOT 'government' money, it is taxpayer money.

It is MY money that is being p1ssed away by the government on many and various buget expenditures and I have every right to complain if it is being wasted.

If you want respect earn your own fuken money, 'cause it doesn't come with a  dole cheque.  >:(

 

... wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 1:32pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 12:54pm: Verge wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 12:07pm: Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 12:05pm: Sappho should apologise to all of us poor taxpayers for her irresponsible decisions that we have to pay for. Who says we are paying for it Bobby? Who paid then? - the Father? Maybe that child will grow up and pay the taxes that support YOU in your old age. I think it's disgusting that you would even suggest she owes you an apology.  hang your head in shame.

MAYBE, but statistically unlikely.

Childern coming from a welfare dependant home are more likely to go straight onto the welfare merry-go-round themselves.

These same children are more likely to become criminals, so bobby is more likely to be bashed and robbed by these people in his old age than be supported by them.

But maybe you are right and the stats are wrong.

Long term welfare breeds and develops less than ideal people, plain and simple.

Capitalist welfare sure breeds less than desirable people thats for sure - the selfish kind of people, the violent kind who think this land and this world is just for them and not for everyone.  But you are being out bred as you always will be and you are dying.   You can move the chess pieces around the globe but they are all coming together. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8-)8-)

Arlo Guthrie /Amazing Grace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i38B2uxaKhQ&feature=related :)

... wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 10:36am:

Sappho wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 7:49am: Verge wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 10:49am: Jesus, its hard enough dealing with a 5 month old. My wife is raising our daughter, spending countless hours with her on her development and wellbeing, does the 3am feed every night and looks after our house. If anyone out of us has a full time job its her.  Kids are hard work, you cant just stick them in a chair and disappear for the day. My wife would spend hours a day with her on things like reading to her, and managing her development in things like strength etc. I think its good they want to help teenage mums get an education, but threatening to take welfare off them in exchange for it is obsurd.  I dont see them doing it to any other group. Just another government attack on a soft target.  Anyone who undervalues the work of a mother needs a solid kick in the backside. What has happened to society that they should find excuses for not doing rather than reasons for doing? Govt in this case is not attacking a soft target... they are seeking to empower them. They want teens to return to study and training so they are prepared for work when their youngest comes of school age. Brilliant idea I'm all for it. I had my first child at 16 and my second at 17. There was no one to assist me with my educational needs. There was no such thing as affordable childcare. You were not encouraged to return to studies. I had to wait until my youngest was 5 before I could enrol in full time studies to get my VCE. Six years is a long time to wait before being able to finish secondary school. Knowledge empowers the person, builds self esteem and prepares a person for their working life. I wish they had such programs when I was a single mum on welfare... I could have been off welfare a lot sooner than I was. I could have been less disadvantaged and stigmatised. That may have worked for YOU, but forcing EVERYONE to do the same is pretty weak.

Society demands that all children attend school... even those with intellectual disabilities are required to attend special school and then move on to life skills training... It seems to work for EVERYONE.

Education is not the boogie man you seem to be implying that it is. Education is the great civilizer and empowerment of society.

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 10:20am:

Quote: I had my first child at 16 and my second at 17. And you expected & got the taxpayer to pick up the tab for your irresponsibility. How could you bring children into the world when you had no means to support them?

I earn a damn fine wage, more than I need even, and have done just that for over 10 years. My tax receipts have already repaid my welfare assistance. I now pay for the welfare assistance of other families and have done for a few years. That is the nature of the social contract... we help those in need, we give back to society what we take from it.

I don't have a problem with that... but clearly you do.

Sappho wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 9:25am:

Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 10:20am: Quote: I had my first child at 16 and my second at 17. And you expected & got the taxpayer to pick up the tab for your irresponsibility. How could you bring children into the world when you had no means to support them? I earn a damn fine wage, more than I need even, and have done just that for over 10 years. My tax receipts have already repaid my welfare assistance. I now pay for the welfare assistance of other families and have done for a few years. That is the nature of the social contract... we help those in need, we give back to society what we take from it. I don't have a problem with that... but clearly you do.

Maybe you're an unusual example?
I am old fashioned in that I don't agree that any woman should have children
unless there is a Father there willing to work to support them.
It's just too easy for the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

Bobby. wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 9:48am:

Sappho wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 9:25am: Bobby. wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 10:20am: Quote: I had my first child at 16 and my second at 17. And you expected & got the taxpayer to pick up the tab for your irresponsibility. How could you bring children into the world when you had no means to support them? I earn a damn fine wage, more than I need even, and have done just that for over 10 years. My tax receipts have already repaid my welfare assistance. I now pay for the welfare assistance of other families and have done for a few years. That is the nature of the social contract... we help those in need, we give back to society what we take from it. I don't have a problem with that... but clearly you do. Maybe you're an unusual example? I am old fashioned in that I don't agree that any woman should have children unless there is a Father there willing to work to support them. It's just too easy for the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

No... I'm not so unusual. There are lots of Adult Men who prey upon teen girls... one example of that is in the media as we speak. You may not realise it, but it is very easy to suck in a young teen girl, as a grown man, through gaining that girl's sympathy with a hard luck story.

And there was a father for my children... a violently abusive father, from whom I escaped with my children before it was too late.

Further, that he chose not to support his children in any way was beyond my control... and before the child support laws were enacted.

We have welfare dependency because the uneducated are unknowing and lacking in self esteem and personal power.  

Sappho,
I agree with you & I'm glad that it all worked out so well.

Bobby. wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:15am:

Sappho, I agree with you & I'm glad that it all worked out so well.

I agree with Bobby.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:19am:

Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:15am: Sappho, I agree with you & I'm glad that it all worked out so well. I agree with Bobby.

Ohh Andrei - we are getting very chummy lately!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:19am:

Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:15am: Sappho, I agree with you & I'm glad that it all worked out so well. I agree with Bobby.

It did work out well... the welfare cycle started and ended with me. My children, in seeing me get an education and move into the work force was a lesson by example that society must be engaged actively and not lived in the fringes such as happens with generational welfare dependency.

My children are now in their mid/late 20s and have never claimed a welfare payment beyond youth allowance when studying. Both work, although my daughter is now on maternity leave to have her second child. She will return to work as she did with her first child.

My story and the upbringing of my children is THE story that we should want for all teen mums and their kids. Knowledge IS power. So, if we need to force teens back into education in order that they can have that personal power which we all take for granted... so be it.

There is still so much capitalist class intergenerational welfare dependency on the working class and the reality is he working class is not forever going to provide it for non producers living in luxury, waging wars, bullying the disadvantaged at the tax payers expense and playing football.  Also - the working class tires of the capitalist class foul parasitic values and telling everyone how they are expected to live while they commit atrocity after atrocity.

Capitalist headline after their most recent assassination of an as yet unidentified man in Pakistan...

'ROT IN HELL'

The working class and poor have no question to answer to this class of warmongering murdering thugs.

Bill you really are a dead-set crackpot mate.

Reported for personal abuse

I just dont like thugs thats all and I do not negotiate or comply with them. 8-)

Arlo Guthrie & Pete Seeger/ This Land Is Your Land
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSIy0wq_-8A&feature=related 8-)

The amount of times you report people, its any wonder you have time to post your rubbish?

Woody Guthrie - All you Fascists bound to Lose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MUe2qwGAcE

Laugh it up, we are breeding, multiplying and organizing while you fascists - well, you have the economic crises, your threats, your fears and you are just not quite sure who to kill next to protect democracy.

you heading for the dustbin of history boy - enjoy the ride because we have had enough of your kind and wont be listening any more. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D