Who are the real bludgers?

Date
    March 13, 2013
The Age.
 

John Watson


Something's awry when the needy are dismissed as welfare spongers and the well-off crave handouts.    


Welfare dependency, most agree, is an ugly thing. It is also a loaded term that brings to mind bludgers addicted to government benefits.

We're not thinking, of course, of the 44 per cent of taxpayers who get more in benefits than they pay in. Who dares suggest ''working families'', even if quite well off, are guilty of some sort of moral failing for accepting state handouts?

It seems the better off feel entitled to better treatment by government. Their status as wealth generators is a passport to ''diplomatic immunity'' from accusations of sponging off the state - however disproportionate to need their benefits and tax concessions may be. Similarly, while age pensioners get the biggest slice of $132 billion in welfare spending (36 per cent of the budget), they are seen to have earned the right to be dependent on government - even those living in $1 million-plus homes. Pensioners and their assets are untouchable, too.

The young, unemployed and single mothers are subject to a different standard. They get lower benefits, often too low to keep them out of poverty, but are treated as a morally suspect underclass that lives off taxpayers who have worked hard for everything they have.     :(


The young jobless have even been accused of being ''job snobs'' who just need to get off their bums to find work. Under-30s in areas with unskilled job vacancies may lose benefits under the Coalition, which also wants long-term unemployed under 50 to work for the dole. Their ''free ride'' is set to end.

Single mums have already copped it. The Gillard government shifted them from a single parent benefit to Newstart, which allows fewer hours of paid work before payments are cut. The government disregarded the impact on low-income families to save $728 million over four years.

However, much better-off ''working families'' who have come to rely on government to boost their finances seemingly have little to fear from the bipartisan savings drive.

Families with children are the second-biggest recipients of welfare spending - about $34 billion a year. Most goes on family tax benefits A and B, but there are also childcare benefits and rebates, paid parental leave, schoolchildren's and baby bonuses and carer allowances. The full list of family benefits is very long.     :-?

Many who receive family welfare are, on any reasonable definition, not needy. Couples with two children in the middle 50 per cent range of incomes ($80,000 to $135,000) may qualify for most or all of the above benefits. One partner can earn up to $150,000 and the second up to $25,623 and they can still get something from Family Tax Benefit B, which costs about $4.5 billion a year.

A reality check on incomes: 50 per cent of households had incomes below $65,000 in the 2011 census. Half of all workers earn $50,000 or less.     :-?

Given how much welfare money goes to middle and high-income families, you'd think the budget costs of ''middle-class welfare'' would be a natural target for savings, especially when Abbott has declared: ''The fiscal position will always be better under the Coalition because budget surpluses and reducing debt, paying back debt, that's in our DNA.''

Yet family payments seem to be off-limits. The Coalition even proposes to add Abbott's $3 billion-a-year paid parental leave plan so benefits for high-income earners are proportionate to their earnings.

When last year's budget trimmed the baby bonus for households with incomes of up to $75,000 in the six months after birth, this was said to be a ''vicious and savage'' attack on families. But just because maternity allowances are an Australian tradition - Labor started them at five pounds in 1912 - that does not mean we can afford to make such benefits an inviolable universal entitlement.

What about private health cover, which gets government support worth $5 billion a year? Policy holders received a 30 per cent rebate on premiums regardless of incomes until the government legislated last year to reduce rebates for single people earning more than $83,000 (the top 20 per cent) and families more than $166,000. Rebates cut out at $129,000 and $258,000. The saving is $2.4 billion over three years.

Abbott vows to restore the full rebate for all as soon as possible, for the usual genetic reasons. ''Private health insurance is in our DNA. It is our raison d'etre, that is why we exist as a political movement, to give more support and encourage people who want to get ahead.''     :(

They're getting ahead all right, especially via superannuation. Tax concessions cost $32 billion a year, but any move to stem the bleeding has the beneficiaries and their advocates screaming ''class war''.   

They're also winning that war hands down, by the way. Super concessions work by taxing contributions and earnings at 15 per cent instead of a taxpayer's marginal rate, so the benefit expands the more you earn. Treasury calculates the top 5 per cent of earners get 37 per cent of the value of concessions. The average male's total super balance as they near retirement isn't worth even half the top earners' average tax concessions of $520,000.     :(

Health and superannuation benefits fatten up the industries as well. Benefits that supplement low incomes are also a de facto subsidy for bosses who can boost their own incomes by paying people less than they could live on without state help.   

Far too many Australians on good incomes have come to rely in many ways on an overstretched welfare budget, one that began as a safety net for the truly needy. This culture of entitlement represents a greater and more insidious moral failing than applies to the vulnerable few whose dependency we scorn.     >:(

John Watson is an Age senior writer.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/who-are-the-real-bludgers-20130312-2fyf3.html#ixzz2NNQr1HXB

And all SO true.

Mostly bull manure.....


Quote:

John Watson is an Age senior writer

...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents.....

Swagman wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 11:58am:

Mostly bull manure..... Quote: John Watson is an Age senior writer ...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents.....

More crap from Swagman who fails to understand people have to eat to live.

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 12:15pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mostly bull manure..... Quote: John Watson is an Age senior writer ...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents..... More crap from Swagman who fails to understand people have to eat to live.

I tell you what, how about these people get a fking job?
Or is that too much to ask.

Swagman wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 11:58am:

Mostly bull manure..... Quote: John Watson is an Age senior writer ...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents.....

yep swagman,  you are 100 % correct.  the welfare state leads to cuba, greece and civil unrest.  give me good healthy capitalism any day. the states job is to keep the capitalists honest.  competition policy , if used correctly will drag everyone up.
reward for failure and punishment for success is an incredibly counter productive idea.  paradoxicly, those who suffer most in a socialist state are the poor.

Before I will talk to anyone in the businessor the Government or centrelink I have alist of questiions...

1.  Are you an Atheist
2.  Are you a liar
3.  Are you a homosexual
4.  What is your opinion of Christians
5.  Do you confess yoursins
6.  Do you keep Gods commandments
7.  Are you violent

Depending on their answers to these and other questions is whether I will even talk to them.  I will not place myself at the mercy of persecution from atheists without the oportunity to judge them and testify against them if they are evil godless scum...

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 1:02pm:

Before I will talk to anyone in the businessor the Government or centrelink I have alist of questiions... 1.  Are you an Atheist 2.  Are you a liar 3.  Are you a homosexual 4.  What is your opinion of Christians 5.  Do you confess yoursins 6.  Do you keep Gods commandments 7.  Are you violent Depending on their answers to these and other questions is whether I will even talk to them.  I will not place myself at the mercy of persecution from atheists without the oportunity to judge them and testify against them if they are evil godless scum...

I guess with that list of questions you are either hung up on, or escorted off the premises..

Swagman wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 11:58am:

Mostly bull manure..... Quote: John Watson is an Age senior writer ...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents.....

Well thats seriously off topic because nobody is rewarding any welfare recipients.

SOB

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 1:02pm: Before I will talk to anyone in the businessor the Government or centrelink I have alist of questiions... 1.  Are you an Atheist 2.  Are you a liar 3.  Are you a homosexual 4.  What is your opinion of Christians 5.  Do you confess yoursins 6.  Do you keep Gods commandments 7.  Are you violent Depending on their answers to these and other questions is whether I will even talk to them.  I will not place myself at the mercy of persecution from atheists without the oportunity to judge them and testify against them if they are evil godless scum... I guess with that list of questions you are either hung up on, or escorted off the premises..

It wont be me seeking themk out...these are my questions for them if they require anything of me and I do not care who they are././.police, Government, centrelink anyone who requires something of me will have to answer to my saticfaction these questions which will determine if I want to deal with them... :)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 12:15pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mostly bull manure..... Quote: John Watson is an Age senior writer ...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents..... More crap from Swagman who fails to understand people have to eat to live. I tell you what, how about these people get a fking job? Or is that too much to ask.

You are just trolling because i know you know better. You have been told numerous times. How many jobs are actually available in australia? Hmmm?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mostly bull manure..... Quote: John Watson is an Age senior writer ...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents..... Well thats seriously off topic because nobody is rewarding any welfare recipients. SOB

you could try asia , our new partners in the asian century where the reward for being out of a job is scavenging rites at the local tip. ;)

Conservatives do not like the truth at all.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

Conservatives do not like the truth at all.

There's that broad brush again.

Bit like saying all Left wingers are tree huggers and poofters.

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 1:08pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 1:04pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 1:02pm: Before I will talk to anyone in the businessor the Government or centrelink I have alist of questiions... 1.  Are you an Atheist 2.  Are you a liar 3.  Are you a homosexual 4.  What is your opinion of Christians 5.  Do you confess yoursins 6.  Do you keep Gods commandments 7.  Are you violent Depending on their answers to these and other questions is whether I will even talk to them.  I will not place myself at the mercy of persecution from atheists without the oportunity to judge them and testify against them if they are evil godless scum... I guess with that list of questions you are either hung up on, or escorted off the premises.. It wont be me seeking themk out...these are my questions for them if they require anything of me and I do not care who they are././.police, Government, centrelink anyone who requires something of me will have to answer to my saticfaction these questions which will determine if I want to deal with them... :)

Ahh so you don't get a Centrelink benefit anymore then?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 12:15pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mostly bull manure..... Quote: John Watson is an Age senior writer ...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents..... More crap from Swagman who fails to understand people have to eat to live. I tell you what, how about these people get a fking job? Or is that too much to ask.

I tell YOU what, Kaffir hater. How about you getting some fking
humanity?
Or is that too much to ask?

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 1:02pm:

Before I will talk to anyone in the business or the Government or centrelink I have a list of questions... 3.  Are you a homosexual Depending on their answers to these and other questions is whether I will even talk to them.

That's one way of finding yourself a partner I guess.   :-/

Had any success?

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 12:51pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 12:15pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mostly bull manure..... Quote: John Watson is an Age senior writer ...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents..... More crap from Swagman who fails to understand people have to eat to live. I tell you what, how about these people get a fking job? Or is that too much to ask. I tell YOU what, Kaffir hater. How about you getting some fking humanity? Or is that too much to ask?

how about you provide ANY evidence whatsoever that I made any comment relating to kaffirs?
Or do you just describe anyone with Afrikaner heritage as racists in that 'one blanket fits all' Left wing way of yours?

Throw it out there sheep-shagger.

It is too much to ask Gods people to submit to demands of Atheists that discriminate against our religious freedom...we must obey God before man... :)

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 12:15pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mostly bull manure..... Quote: John Watson is an Age senior writer ...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents..... More crap from Swagman who fails to understand people have to eat to live.

Oh I understand that people have to eat and live all right.

The fact that people have to eat to live is the incentive to work and improve one's self.

The problem with leftism is that it removes the incentive to improve one's self.  Why work harder when the rewards are stolen and redistributed to some lazy prick who chooses not to work?

When you reward something you get more of it.

Reward effort and you get more effort, reward laziness and you get more laziness. :( 

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mostly bull manure..... Quote: John Watson is an Age senior writer ...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents..... Well thats seriously off topic because nobody is rewarding any welfare recipients. SOB

People like Swagman, Andrei et al, and their attitudes, are all the proof needed to show that the story is substantially correct.

Their bleating when the medicare levy was means-tested, their appalling attitude towards genuine welfare recips getting a raise while screaming for more themselves, and their baseless debunking of this story and denigrating the writer merely adds support to this.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 1:19pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 1:16pm: Conservatives do not like the truth at all. There's that broad brush again. Bit like saying all Left wingers are tree huggers and poofters.

It was an observation based on the comments of the conservatives here on this topic.

The conclusion seems reasonable.

Surprised to see someone without bias like you take the conservative line again, about the 10,000th time in a row I would think. At some point maybe you should re consider your level of biaslessness.

Swagman wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 11:58am:

Mostly bull manure..... Quote: John Watson is an Age senior writer ...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents.....

Indeed, like the annual baby-drop to draw that much more from Welfare. . .

No wonder such breeders can afford to smoke and drink while parents race to jobs each morning so to support these as well as feed their own and pay the mortgage.

No money left for smokes or beer nor the holiday.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 2:40pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 1:19pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 1:16pm: Conservatives do not like the truth at all. There's that broad brush again. Bit like saying all Left wingers are tree huggers and poofters. It was an observation based on the comments of the conservatives here on this topic. The conclusion seems reasonable. Surprised to see someone without bias like you take the conservative line again, about the 10,000th time in a row I would think. At some point maybe you should re consider your level of biaslessness.

the way i see it is this.  people who are good in business and smart  tend to make more money.
they also tend to be able to see what effects , different policy options will have on the economy (and the ability of the economy to provide more prosperity).

so when a rich person says, increasing welfare is a disincentive and will take the prosperity of ALL australians backwards.
is this a rich person talking from interest ?
or a smart person (a street smart person) who simply understands the impact of policy?

to be honest, i make heaps and a lot more than i need.
as a buddhist , i dont really care about showing off my wealth and lets face it, it only impresses the aspiring middle classes who are often not very nice people (the "keeping up with the jones set") but i do love my country and my kids and i love people who try hard and i want to see them suceed and have a prosperous life.

and i think rich people should practice philanthropy in the way many americans do.

but i am smart enough to see the writing on the wall.

whinging about more welfare (government welfare that is) is simply the wrong policy for australia.

i'm happy to see my tax dollars put into education or reducing hecs fees or the environment but welfare is the wrong model for australia in the next century.

and thats speaking as a smart person, not through my hip pocket.  welfare money can be channelled into money for training or business start ups for the poor but if just given as $$$ it will end up being wasted and the problem will continue to worsen.  we should aim to have less than 10 % of people recieving any governent hand outs, at all. and the same goes for business.  welfare to business sends the wrong message and weakens australia.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 1:25pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 12:51pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 12:15pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mostly bull manure..... Quote: John Watson is an Age senior writer ...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents..... More crap from Swagman who fails to understand people have to eat to live. I tell you what, how about these people get a fking job? Or is that too much to ask. I tell YOU what, Kaffir hater. How about you getting some fking humanity? Or is that too much to ask? how about you provide ANY evidence whatsoever that I made any comment relating to kaffirs? Or do you just describe anyone with Afrikaner heritage as racists in that 'one blanket fits all' Left wing way of yours? Throw it out there sheep-shagger.

now THAT was funny!

Believers simply have to draw a line in the sand about having atheists having influence over our lives or the government of our lives, they must be cast out - we must have zero tolerance with attacks on us for our beliefs and our values.  Charity and helping the poor must always be the cornerstone of a Christian God fearing society and atheism must be given no quarter... :)

Isn't it a funny coincidence that those who are the loudest and most virulent in their condemnation of welfare recipients
and the most vociferous opponents of them getting a fair, just and long-overdue increase are the VERY ONES who are
pulling the lion's share of the WEALTHFARE?

These hypocrites are in no position to criticise ANYONE on benefits.

the OP was really a very poorly argued peice. Apart from list the welfare benefits that apply, what point did he make? Whiel agreeing with Andrei always makes me doubt my beleifs, in this case he has a valid (if unsubtle) point. Wnhy dont they get a job In all the complaints, in all of the ranting, no one singe reference was made to working to improve your life. That IS the bludger mentality.

we all have to work to get ahead in life.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

the OP was really a very poorly argued peice. Apart from list the welfare benefits that apply, what point did he make? Whiel agreeing with Andrei always makes me doubt my beleifs, in this case he has a valid (if unsubtle) point. Wnhy dont they get a job In all the complaints, in all of the ranting, no one singe reference was made to working to improve your life. That IS the bludger mentality. we all have to work to get ahead in life.

Yes and people who excell in godliness and knowledge of the Bible and work hard at their faith have just as much right atheist longweekend... :)

I know more about the Bible than most people on the planet and understand it better... :)

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 3:14pm:

I know more about the Bible than most people on the planet and understand it better... :)

From what you post on the subject...clearly you DON'T

You're right up there with Bobby, Lastnail and Borg for inaccuracy on Biblical knowledge

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 3:17pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:14pm: I know more about the Bible than most people on the planet and understand it better... :) From what you post on the subject...clearly you DON'T

Yes, I do, I am a Prophet... :)

A muppet you mean?

Swagman wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 3:21pm:

A muppet you mean?

God is going to send the majority of people who have ever lived to hell for their atheism...are you comforted...? 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:21pm: A muppet you mean? God is going to send the majority of people who have ever lived to hell for their atheism...are you comforted...? 8-)

Yep....  :)


Lo there do I see my father, Lo there do I see my mother, my Sisters and my brothers , Lo there do I see the line of my people, back to the beginning. Lo, they do call me, they bid me take my place among them, in the halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever.......

Swagman wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 3:30pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:24pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:21pm: A muppet you mean? God is going to send the majority of people who have ever lived to hell for their atheism...are you comforted...? 8-) Yep....  :) Lo there do I see my father, Lo there do I see my mother, my Sisters and my brothers , Lo there do I see the line of my people, back to the beginning. Lo, they do call me, they bid me take my place among them, in the halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever.......

The Book of Revelation is not a start to finish literal chronological history as American evangelicals think and SDA and Jehovas Witnesses and other millenialists do as they try to contrive it into their own formulas.  I am about to give you the benefit of my vast Biblical knowledge and like a bludger you will expect it from a Prophet of God for free.  The book of Revelations is a series of Prophesies and allegories that recapitulate exactly the same message..so I give you the following chapter which sums up the whole of the apocalypse in a nutshell and if the spirit allows you may understand....



Quote:

Revelation 14 New International Version (NIV) The Lamb and the 144,000 14 Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. 3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless. The Three Angels 6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. 7 He said in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water.” 8 A second angel followed and said, “‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great,’[a] which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries.” 9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus. 13 Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them.” Harvesting the Earth and Trampling the Winepress 14 I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man[b] with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, “Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.” 16 So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested. 17 Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. 18 Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, “Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth’s vine, because its grapes are ripe.” 19 The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. 20 They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.[c]

Chapter 14 is actually three prophesies repeating exactly the same mystery....

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:30pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:24pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:21pm: A muppet you mean? God is going to send the majority of people who have ever lived to hell for their atheism...are you comforted...? 8-) Yep....  :) Lo there do I see my father, Lo there do I see my mother, my Sisters and my brothers , Lo there do I see the line of my people, back to the beginning. Lo, they do call me, they bid me take my place among them, in the halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever....... The Book of Revelation is not a start to finish literal chronological history as American evangelicals think and SDA and Jehovas Witnesses and other millenialists do as they try to contrive it into their own formulas.  I am about to give you the benefit of my vast Biblical knowledge and like a bludger you will expect it from a Prophet of God for free.  The book of Revelations is a series of Prophesies and allegories that recapitulate exactly the same message..so I give you the following chapter which sums up the whole of the apocalypse in a nutshell and if the spirit allows you may understand.... Quote:

Why did you make a reference to Revelations in response to a Viking prayer from a movies?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 6:13pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 5:30pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:30pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:24pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:21pm: A muppet you mean? God is going to send the majority of people who have ever lived to hell for their atheism...are you comforted...? 8-) Yep....  :) Lo there do I see my father, Lo there do I see my mother, my Sisters and my brothers , Lo there do I see the line of my people, back to the beginning. Lo, they do call me, they bid me take my place among them, in the halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever....... The Book of Revelation is not a start to finish literal chronological history as American evangelicals think and SDA and Jehovas Witnesses and other millenialists do as they try to contrive it into their own formulas.  I am about to give you the benefit of my vast Biblical knowledge and like a bludger you will expect it from a Prophet of God for free.  The book of Revelations is a series of Prophesies and allegories that recapitulate exactly the same message..so I give you the following chapter which sums up the whole of the apocalypse in a nutshell and if the spirit allows you may understand.... Quote: Why did you make a reference to Revelations in response to a Viking prayer from a movies?

Because my original point which he responded to with the Viking quote was that God is going to send the devil seed atheists to hell...I just wanted to illuminate how this is spelled out by my Gods Prophecies...

              The Lion's Share.


The RICH provide the Lion's share of the jobs.

The WORKING-CLASS create the lion's share of the wealth.

The MIDDLE-CLASS take the lion's share of the benefits and the credit.

The POOR do the lion's share of the suffering.




End middle-class wealthfare NOW.

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 6:19pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 6:13pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 5:30pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:30pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:24pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:21pm: A muppet you mean? God is going to send the majority of people who have ever lived to hell for their atheism...are you comforted...? 8-) Yep....  :) Lo there do I see my father, Lo there do I see my mother, my Sisters and my brothers , Lo there do I see the line of my people, back to the beginning. Lo, they do call me, they bid me take my place among them, in the halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever....... The Book of Revelation is not a start to finish literal chronological history as American evangelicals think and SDA and Jehovas Witnesses and other millenialists do as they try to contrive it into their own formulas.  I am about to give you the benefit of my vast Biblical knowledge and like a bludger you will expect it from a Prophet of God for free.  The book of Revelations is a series of Prophesies and allegories that recapitulate exactly the same message..so I give you the following chapter which sums up the whole of the apocalypse in a nutshell and if the spirit allows you may understand.... Quote: Why did you make a reference to Revelations in response to a Viking prayer from a movies? Because my original point which he responded to with the Viking quote was that God is going to send the devil seed atheists to hell...I just wanted to illuminate how this is spelled out by my Gods Prophecies...

You do know that it probably won't be only the atheists, don't you?? (supposing of course that god, or hell even exist)

Aaaaand another welfare thread gets dragged off-topic and trashed.

Why aren't I surprised......

Atheists are squatters on Gods Earth and do not pay rent...Gillard is an out right thief... :)

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

The Lion's Share. The RICH provide the Lion's share of the jobs. The WORKING-CLASS create the lion's share of the wealth. The MIDDLE-CLASS take the lion's share of the benefits and the credit. The POOR do the lion's share of the suffering. End middle-class wealthfare NOW.

Quote:

The RICH provide the Lion's share of the jobs

Correct

Wealthfare is a myth.

The (so-called) rich pay the lion's share of tax but are never represented by Govt.

The (so-called) rich are the slaves of the majority that pay the minority of tax (the so-called poor).

The majority that pay the minority of tax (the Poor) could be the masters of their own destinies however they prefer to live off the tit of the minority that pay the majority of tax.  It's less effort. :(

QUOTE:- 'Wealthfare is a myth..."

Well there goes any smidgen of credibility YOU ever had on the topic (which was never much).

It's not only a fact, it's what's screwing genuine welfare recips out of their share of the welfare pie.

And, IMO, the only reason the Libs are so popular is because the middle-class thinks Tony will
continue and increase their wealthfare, while continuing to marginalise genuine recips.

Sadly, they are probably correct.


**Those who denigrate the poor, deserve to JOIN them.**

Really?   :-? Firstly 'Welfare' is in the dictionary.  'Wealthfare' is not.

That aside, wealthfare is a myth because rebating tax is in effect just recovery of stolen goods.

Welfare is a 'handout' whilst a tax rebate is really just a hand back-----> big difference.

Given legitimacy by a tyrannous majority taxation is no more than legalised theft by a tyrannous mob not unlike the mafia.

Think about it.  One is forced to pay tax under threat of prosecution and deprivation of one's liberty for what?  Working hard and making a quid..... :(

Swagman wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 9:03am:

Really?   :-? Firstly 'Welfare' is in the dictionary.  'Wealthfare' is not. That aside, wealthfare is a myth because rebating tax is in effect just recovery of stolen goods. Welfare is a 'handout' whilst a tax rebate is really just a hand back-----> big difference. Given legitimacy by a tyrannous majority taxation is no more than legalised theft by a tyrannous mob not unlike the mafia. Think about it.  One is forced to pay tax under threat of prosecution and deprivation of one's liberty for what?  Working hard and making a quid..... :(

That doesnt make much sense because the baby bonus is a handout and the pension is a paying back of the tax ppl paid all their working lives. you do not pay a baby bonus tax.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 9:22am:

Swagman wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 9:03am: Really?   :-? Firstly 'Welfare' is in the dictionary.  'Wealthfare' is not. That aside, wealthfare is a myth because rebating tax is in effect just recovery of stolen goods. Welfare is a 'handout' whilst a tax rebate is really just a hand back-----> big difference. Given legitimacy by a tyrannous majority taxation is no more than legalised theft by a tyrannous mob not unlike the mafia. Think about it.  One is forced to pay tax under threat of prosecution and deprivation of one's liberty for what?  Working hard and making a quid..... :( That doesnt make much sense because the baby bonus is a handout and the pension is a paying back of the tax ppl paid all their working lives. you do not pay a baby bonus tax. SOB

Suggest you re-read as it makes perfect sence... :-?

God is dealing with the devil atheists who have been withholding wealth from his work, he has seen the iniquity of the Australian Government against mothers and heard the cries of poverty of her children... >:(

Swagman wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 10:02am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 9:22am: Swagman wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 9:03am: Really?   :-? Firstly 'Welfare' is in the dictionary.  'Wealthfare' is not. That aside, wealthfare is a myth because rebating tax is in effect just recovery of stolen goods. Welfare is a 'handout' whilst a tax rebate is really just a hand back-----> big difference. Given legitimacy by a tyrannous majority taxation is no more than legalised theft by a tyrannous mob not unlike the mafia. Think about it.  One is forced to pay tax under threat of prosecution and deprivation of one's liberty for what?  Working hard and making a quid..... :( That doesnt make much sense because the baby bonus is a handout and the pension is a paying back of the tax ppl paid all their working lives. you do not pay a baby bonus tax. SOB Suggest you re-read as it makes perfect sence... :-?

So you completely ignored the rest of my post?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 11:03am:

So you completely ignored the rest of my post?

...that's par for the course here

Baby bonus to somebody that doesn't pay tax is a hand out.

Baby bonus to a tax payer is a rebate (hand back).  It's incentive for someone to leave the work force to have a kid (hopefully a potential future tax payer and not a welfare dependent)

Old Age Pension is welfare or as you mention a reward for having paid tax all your life unless of course you have worked hard and accumulated wealth and then you get effall for your efforts from the Tyrannous jealous masses.

Swagman wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 11:03am: So you completely ignored the rest of my post? ...that's par for the course here Baby bonus to somebody that doesn't pay tax is a hand out. Baby bonus to a tax payer is a rebate (hand back).  It's incentive for someone to leave the work force to have a kid (hopefully a potential future tax payer and not a welfare dependent) Old Age Pension is welfare or as you mention a reward for having paid tax all your life unless of course you have worked hard and accumulated wealth and then you get effall for your efforts from the Tyrannous jealous masses.

You pay tax into the pension and you claim it back as a pension - how is it different from what you are saying? Of course you are wrong anyway because the baby bonus is just a handout - a vote buyer. Everyone has to pay tax but you seem to think that the rich shouldn't have to.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

Everyone has to pay tax but you seem to think that the rich shouldn't have to.

The top 25% of taxpayers pay for 67% of total tax paid.  A quarter of the population pay for 67% of the cost of Govt.  This is increased if Govt go into debt like our current incompetent mob.

If you arbitrarily say that the top 25% of taxpayers are the rich.  Then they pay a disproportionate amount of their income and get less Govt 'services' as a result.

They are even coerced by financial penalties to pay private health insurance etc. 

Now you bleat and whinge because the Govt returns some miniscule amount of their disproportionately paid tax back to them as an incentive to have a kid or take out private health insurance etc. ::)

They can't do much about it either because they will always be in the minority come election time.

Ther are a few in that 75% that understand that killing the golden goose is not really a good idea which is why they aren't taxed 100%.
 

Swagman wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 2:27pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 12:02pm: Everyone has to pay tax but you seem to think that the rich shouldn't have to. The top 25% of taxpayers pay for 67% of total tax paid.  A quarter of the population pay for 67% of the cost of Govt.  This is increased if Govt go into debt like our current incompetent mob. If you arbitrarily say that the top 25% of taxpayers are the rich.  Then they pay a disproportionate amount of their income and get less Govt 'services' as a result. They are even coerced by financial penalties to pay private health insurance etc.  Now you bleat and whinge because the Govt returns some miniscule amount of their disproportionately paid tax back to them as an incentive to have a kid or take out private health insurance etc. ::)

Only 22% of Australians own a house. Crime pays better in Australia rather than  toeing the line and slaving at  an average job. How about the lower income groups get payed more? People are living from pay to pay. I doubt they'd survive on a significant tax increase. There even might be some left over for a tax increase. I suppose the rich could do with a tax decrease so they can buy more houses and go on more holidays.

Swagman wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 2:27pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 12:02pm: Everyone has to pay tax but you seem to think that the rich shouldn't have to. The top 25% of taxpayers pay for 67% of total tax paid.  A quarter of the population pay for 67% of the cost of Govt.  This is increased if Govt go into debt like our current incompetent mob. If you arbitrarily say that the top 25% of taxpayers are the rich.  Then they pay a disproportionate amount of their income and get less Govt 'services' as a result. They are even coerced by financial penalties to pay private health insurance etc.  Now you bleat and whinge because the Govt returns some miniscule amount of their disproportionately paid tax back to them as an incentive to have a kid or take out private health insurance etc. ::) They can't do much about it either because they will always be in the minority come election time. Ther are a few in that 75% that understand that killing the golden goose is not really a good idea which is why they aren't taxed 100%.

So what. The top 25% can afford it the poor cannot.

SOB

The Demons in the parliament are deliberately sacrificing the lives of the Australian poor and preventing them... :(

Swagman wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 9:03am:

Really?   :-? Firstly 'Welfare' is in the dictionary.  'Wealthfare' is not. That aside, wealthfare is a myth because rebating tax is in effect just recovery of stolen goods. Welfare is a 'handout' whilst a tax rebate is really just a hand back-----> big difference. Given legitimacy by a tyrannous majority taxation is no more than legalised theft by a tyrannous mob not unlike the mafia. Think about it.  One is forced to pay tax under threat of prosecution and deprivation of one's liberty for what?  Working hard and making a quid..... :(

The conservative dictionary defines "hand out" as something other people get.

A "hand back" is what conservatives get.

Kat wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 8:37am:

QUOTE:- 'Wealthfare is a myth..." Well there goes any smidgen of credibility YOU ever had on the topic (which was never much). It's not only a fact, it's what's screwing genuine welfare recips out of their share of the welfare pie. And, IMO, the only reason the Libs are so popular is because the middle-class thinks Tony will continue and increase their wealthfare, while continuing to marginalise genuine recips. Sadly, they are probably correct. **Those who denigrate the poor, deserve to JOIN them.**

you really are a fool at times and this is one of them. The libs you love to denigrate have increased welfare payments to the poor by a much higher amount that labor govts in the last 30 years. Who began family assistance packages? FRASER. 

grow up and develop an opinion on something beyond the bloody level of the dole!

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:37am: QUOTE:- 'Wealthfare is a myth..." Well there goes any smidgen of credibility YOU ever had on the topic (which was never much). It's not only a fact, it's what's screwing genuine welfare recips out of their share of the welfare pie. And, IMO, the only reason the Libs are so popular is because the middle-class thinks Tony will continue and increase their wealthfare, while continuing to marginalise genuine recips. Sadly, they are probably correct. **Those who denigrate the poor, deserve to JOIN them.** you really are a fool at times and this is one of them. The libs you love to denigrate have increased welfare payments to the poor by a much higher amount that labor govts in the last 30 years. Who began family assistance packages? FRASER.  grow up and develop an opinion on something beyond the bloody level of the dole!

you mean things like rent assistance which is just more indirect corporate welfare under the guise of helping out the needy which it doesn't do at all :(

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:37am: QUOTE:- 'Wealthfare is a myth..." Well there goes any smidgen of credibility YOU ever had on the topic (which was never much). It's not only a fact, it's what's screwing genuine welfare recips out of their share of the welfare pie. And, IMO, the only reason the Libs are so popular is because the middle-class thinks Tony will continue and increase their wealthfare, while continuing to marginalise genuine recips. Sadly, they are probably correct. **Those who denigrate the poor, deserve to JOIN them.** you really are a fool at times and this is one of them. The libs you love to denigrate have increased welfare payments to the poor by a much higher amount that labor govts in the last 30 years. Who began family assistance packages? FRASER.  grow up and develop an opinion on something beyond the bloody level of the dole!

Hangon. What are "family assistance packages"? Something whitlam started renamed or more wealthfare or what?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 4:58am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 7:22pm: Kat wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:37am: QUOTE:- 'Wealthfare is a myth..." Well there goes any smidgen of credibility YOU ever had on the topic (which was never much). It's not only a fact, it's what's screwing genuine welfare recips out of their share of the welfare pie. And, IMO, the only reason the Libs are so popular is because the middle-class thinks Tony will continue and increase their wealthfare, while continuing to marginalise genuine recips. Sadly, they are probably correct. **Those who denigrate the poor, deserve to JOIN them.** you really are a fool at times and this is one of them. The libs you love to denigrate have increased welfare payments to the poor by a much higher amount that labor govts in the last 30 years. Who began family assistance packages? FRASER.  grow up and develop an opinion on something beyond the bloody level of the dole! Hangon. What are "family assistance packages"? Something whitlam started renamed or more wealthfare or what? SOB

research it you brain-dead spastic.

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 10:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 7:22pm: Kat wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:37am: QUOTE:- 'Wealthfare is a myth..." Well there goes any smidgen of credibility YOU ever had on the topic (which was never much). It's not only a fact, it's what's screwing genuine welfare recips out of their share of the welfare pie. And, IMO, the only reason the Libs are so popular is because the middle-class thinks Tony will continue and increase their wealthfare, while continuing to marginalise genuine recips. Sadly, they are probably correct. **Those who denigrate the poor, deserve to JOIN them.** you really are a fool at times and this is one of them. The libs you love to denigrate have increased welfare payments to the poor by a much higher amount that labor govts in the last 30 years. Who began family assistance packages? FRASER.  grow up and develop an opinion on something beyond the bloody level of the dole! you mean things like rent assistance which is just more indirect corporate welfare under the guise of helping out the needy which it doesn't do at all :(

sounds like someone doesnt get rent assistance so he thinks no one shoudl get it.

you are EASILY the angriest and most bitter poster on here - by a mile.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 1:25pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 12:51pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 12:15pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 11:58am: Mostly bull manure..... Quote: John Watson is an Age senior writer ...he's also a 'true believer' and as one is unable to understand cause and effect, and specifically the effect that disincentive has on people's actions. He does not understand that rewarding something creates more of it, and that rewarding need creates more need and rewarding welfare dependents creates more welfare dependents..... More crap from Swagman who fails to understand people have to eat to live. I tell you what, how about these people get a fking job? Or is that too much to ask. I tell YOU what, Kaffir hater. How about you getting some fking humanity? Or is that too much to ask? how about you provide ANY evidence whatsoever that I made any comment relating to kaffirs? Or do you just describe anyone with Afrikaner heritage as racists in that 'one blanket fits all' Left wing way of yours? Throw it out there sheep-shagger.

You want evidence, Andrei?

On February 22' at 3.31pm, under a thread entitled wrong Paul Howes, you posted the following:

"Kaffirs were the blacks. They had the spears.
We had guns and took their heads off with them.
Shame we handed South Africa to a bunch of imbeciles to wreck"

QED.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 5:43pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 4:58am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 7:22pm: Kat wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:37am: QUOTE:- 'Wealthfare is a myth..." Well there goes any smidgen of credibility YOU ever had on the topic (which was never much). It's not only a fact, it's what's screwing genuine welfare recips out of their share of the welfare pie. And, IMO, the only reason the Libs are so popular is because the middle-class thinks Tony will continue and increase their wealthfare, while continuing to marginalise genuine recips. Sadly, they are probably correct. **Those who denigrate the poor, deserve to JOIN them.** you really are a fool at times and this is one of them. The libs you love to denigrate have increased welfare payments to the poor by a much higher amount that labor govts in the last 30 years. Who began family assistance packages? FRASER.  grow up and develop an opinion on something beyond the bloody level of the dole! Hangon. What are "family assistance packages"? Something whitlam started renamed or more wealthfare or what? SOB research it you brain-dead spastic.

you brought it up you explain it

Obviously something fraser renamed

SOB

Waste of time discussing anything welfare-related with these dills, Spot. Unless it's going into THEIR hands.

Notice they can't even discuss it without denigrating, belittling, name-calling and abuse. Because it's all they have.

They're in the wrong and they KNOW it.

Their sense of superiority and self-entitlement is enough to make anyone who believes in a fair go physically sick.

They are ALL about protecting their wealthfare, (which they claim either doesn't exist, or insist is somehow their 'right')
and don't care who suffers, or how much. As long as it isn't THEM.

See the screams when I suggested that this is the main reason some of them support the Con-alition? Fair bet that
a Con-alition govt would continue to grow the wealthfare pie at the expense of the genuinely needy.

The point is, those of us who support a fair go for WELFARE recips, not wealthfare, are NOT going away, and are in
fact growing and getting more vocal by the day, and WILL NOT STOP until the needy get their fair share, and the
wealthfare train is derailed for good.

I'll drop the matter when it's beeen resolved in favour of the genuine welfare recips, and the unemployed/single
parents get their LONG overdue, fair and just increase.

And NOT BEFORE. So get used to it.......

Kat wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 7:03am:

Waste of time discussing anything welfare-related with these dills, Spot. Unless it's going into THEIR hands. Notice they can't even discuss it without denigrating, belittling, name-calling and abuse. Because it's all they have. They're in the wrong and they KNOW it. Their sense of superiority and self-entitlement is enough to make anyone who believes in a fair go physically sick. They are ALL about protecting their wealthfare, (which they claim either doesn't exist, or insist is somehow their 'right') and don't care who suffers, or how much. As long as it isn't THEM. See the screams when I suggested that this is the main reason some of them support the Con-alition? Fair bet that a Con-alition govt would continue to grow the wealthfare pie at the expense of the genuinely needy. The point is, those of us who support a fair go for WELFARE recips, not wealthfare, are NOT going away, and are in fact growing and getting more vocal by the day, and WILL NOT STOP until the needy get their fair share, and the wealthfare train is derailed for good. I'll drop the matter when it's beeen resolved in favour of the genuine welfare recips, and the unemployed/single parents get their LONG overdue, fair and just increase. And NOT BEFORE. So get used to it.......

Keep up the good work, Kat.....

Kat wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 7:03am:

Waste of time discussing anything welfare-related with these dills, Spot. Unless it's going into THEIR hands. Notice they can't even discuss it without denigrating, belittling, name-calling and abuse. Because it's all they have. They're in the wrong and they KNOW it. Their sense of superiority and self-entitlement is enough to make anyone who believes in a fair go physically sick. They are ALL about protecting their wealthfare, (which they claim either doesn't exist, or insist is somehow their 'right') and don't care who suffers, or how much. As long as it isn't THEM. See the screams when I suggested that this is the main reason some of them support the Con-alition? Fair bet that a Con-alition govt would continue to grow the wealthfare pie at the expense of the genuinely needy. The point is, those of us who support a fair go for WELFARE recips, not wealthfare, are NOT going away, and are in fact growing and getting more vocal by the day, and WILL NOT STOP until the needy get their fair share, and the wealthfare train is derailed for good. I'll drop the matter when it's beeen resolved in favour of the genuine welfare recips, and the unemployed/single parents get their LONG overdue, fair and just increase. And NOT BEFORE. So get used to it.......

maybe if you had an opinion beyond 'i want more dole' you might be treated better. that is ALL you ever go on about as if there are no other issues around?

The people you complain about are the people who pay you your dole or welfare already. bithcing about 'i want more' is never going to win you support. try a new tack, ok?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 7:38am:

Kat wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 7:03am: Waste of time discussing anything welfare-related with these dills, Spot. Unless it's going into THEIR hands. Notice they can't even discuss it without denigrating, belittling, name-calling and abuse. Because it's all they have. They're in the wrong and they KNOW it. Their sense of superiority and self-entitlement is enough to make anyone who believes in a fair go physically sick. They are ALL about protecting their wealthfare, (which they claim either doesn't exist, or insist is somehow their 'right') and don't care who suffers, or how much. As long as it isn't THEM. See the screams when I suggested that this is the main reason some of them support the Con-alition? Fair bet that a Con-alition govt would continue to grow the wealthfare pie at the expense of the genuinely needy. The point is, those of us who support a fair go for WELFARE recips, not wealthfare, are NOT going away, and are in fact growing and getting more vocal by the day, and WILL NOT STOP until the needy get their fair share, and the wealthfare train is derailed for good. I'll drop the matter when it's beeen resolved in favour of the genuine welfare recips, and the unemployed/single parents get their LONG overdue, fair and just increase. And NOT BEFORE. So get used to it....... maybe if you had an opinion beyond 'i want more dole' you might be treated better. that is ALL you ever go on about as if there are no other issues around? The people you complain about are the people who pay you your dole or welfare already. bithcing about 'i want more' is never going to win you support. try a new tack, ok?

Try a new tack, yourself, sunshine. Try being tolerant for a change. Kat has support from many here, the only supporters you have are the whinging right wingers who consider they have the right to mind other people's business.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 7:38am:

maybe if you had an opinion beyond 'i want more dole' you might be treated better. that is ALL you ever go on about as if there are no other issues around?The people you complain about are the people who pay you your dole or welfare already. bithcing about 'i want more' is never going to win you support. try a new tack, ok?

what a looser.

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 7:38am: Kat wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 7:03am: Waste of time discussing anything welfare-related with these dills, Spot. Unless it's going into THEIR hands. Notice they can't even discuss it without denigrating, belittling, name-calling and abuse. Because it's all they have. They're in the wrong and they KNOW it. Their sense of superiority and self-entitlement is enough to make anyone who believes in a fair go physically sick. They are ALL about protecting their wealthfare, (which they claim either doesn't exist, or insist is somehow their 'right') and don't care who suffers, or how much. As long as it isn't THEM. See the screams when I suggested that this is the main reason some of them support the Con-alition? Fair bet that a Con-alition govt would continue to grow the wealthfare pie at the expense of the genuinely needy. The point is, those of us who support a fair go for WELFARE recips, not wealthfare, are NOT going away, and are in fact growing and getting more vocal by the day, and WILL NOT STOP until the needy get their fair share, and the wealthfare train is derailed for good. I'll drop the matter when it's beeen resolved in favour of the genuine welfare recips, and the unemployed/single parents get their LONG overdue, fair and just increase. And NOT BEFORE. So get used to it....... maybe if you had an opinion beyond 'i want more dole' you might be treated better. that is ALL you ever go on about as if there are no other issues around? The people you complain about are the people who pay you your dole or welfare already. bithcing about 'i want more' is never going to win you support. try a new tack, ok? Try a new tack, yourself, sunshine. Try being tolerant for a change. Kat has support from many here, the only supporters you have are the whinging right wingers who consider they have the right to mind other people's business.

if you had half the comprehension capacity that a supposed former journo would have you would have noticed that I wasnt opposing his position but rather his repeated, boring, ad nauseum repetitions of it.  We are all heartily sick of the 'give me more' mentality of people and even more so when it is repeated again and again and again.

Who is "we" sunshine? I am sick or your whining and whinging.

Please give money directly to Charities that are doing the work of Jesus, don't be a consumer...the most frightening words to a poor person are "I am from the Government and I am here to help'  the poor have only Charity to rely on because the State is crucifying them like they did to Jesus...

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:

Who is "we" sunshine? I am sick or your whining and whinging.

'we' is longlooser, goldmedal, and all the other voices in his head.

The poor want charity not welfare...treat the poor like you would Jesus, because he is one of them...What you fail to do for the poor you fail to do for Jesus...

John Smith wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:30pm: Who is "we" sunshine? I am sick or your whining and whinging. 'we' is longlooser, goldmedal, and all the other voices in his head.

at least we can read and understand a treasury document which is more than you can do apparently.

I can see you now, wrapped up in bed with your Milo, digestive biscuits and a Treasury report.

Personally, I prefer sex or a good novel.

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:

Believers simply have to draw a line in the sand about having atheists having influence over our lives or the government of our lives, they must be cast out - we must have zero tolerance with attacks on us for our beliefs and our values.  Charity and helping the poor must always be the cornerstone of a Christian God fearing society and atheism must be given no quarter... :)

Whitey - this thread has nothing to do with atheists -
it's all about bludgers like you.

Get a haircut & get a job.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:09pm: Believers simply have to draw a line in the sand about having atheists having influence over our lives or the government of our lives, they must be cast out - we must have zero tolerance with attacks on us for our beliefs and our values.  Charity and helping the poor must always be the cornerstone of a Christian God fearing society and atheism must be given no quarter... :) Whitey - this thread has nothing to do with atheists - it's all about bludgers like you. Get a haircut & get a job.

Dont listen to what Atheists like bobby the bat says, Churches and charities know that single mothers and their children and the outcast homeless and the afflicted are Jesus himself...they must step up and compensate the poor for what the State hasd taken...Jesus mandates it, the poor must be provided for - the State does not want that job and its not there Job, the Churches must act...give to the poor all ye who follow Jesus...

Whitey - don't call me an atheist - I'm a scientist -

I just don't believe in fairy stories - I require a theory & a proof.

Bobby the bat is an Atheist, he does not speak for Christianity and its mission...ignore him...feed the children of widowed and abandoned mothers, provide for the poor, the homeless and the afflicted and do not leave them to the mercy of the State and vicious atheists like Bobby the bat...

Bobby. wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 3:35pm:

Whitey - don't call me an atheist - I'm a scientist - I just don't believe in fairy stories - I require a theory & a proof.

an actual scientist (ie not you) would ask for a HYPOTHESIS and then proof.

and a bright person would not state that the unproven didnt exist or was wrong. they would admit that the entire body truth and knowledge might not reside within their brains or experience.

you never went to university unless it was as a gardener.

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 3:39pm:

Bobby the bat is an Atheist, he does not speak for Christianity and its mission...ignore him...feed the children of widowed and abandoned mothers, provide for the poor, the homeless and the afflicted and do not leave them to the mercy of the State and vicious atheists like Bobby the bat...

Whitey -
you forgot to add -
provide for those who sit on their fat arses collecting handouts from taxpayers while criticising
& damning to hell hard working people who pay those taxes.
( Talk about biting the hand that feeds you - & that has made you fat. )

You're a horrible person Whitey - full of hate - you should be banned.

Bobby the bat is an atheist who hates Jesus therefore he has a hatred in his heart of a satanic nature to the poor, the afflicted and the homeless that is a deep selfish hole in his character and his soul which is blackness...The work of Jesus is with the poor...he wants you to give abundantly and provide to  them what bobby the bat wants to take from them...the poor are Jesus...all of them...victims of evil doers...

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 2:49pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:58pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:30pm: Who is "we" sunshine? I am sick or your whining and whinging. 'we' is longlooser, goldmedal, and all the other voices in his head. at least we can read and understand a treasury document which is more than you can do apparently.

who told you that? was it voice 13 or is it voice number 14?

John Smith wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 3:56pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 2:49pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:58pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:30pm: Who is "we" sunshine? I am sick or your whining and whinging. 'we' is longlooser, goldmedal, and all the other voices in his head. at least we can read and understand a treasury document which is more than you can do apparently. who told you that? was it voice 13 or is it voice number 14?

its called numbers on an offical treasury page. thats the kind of thing you cant understand because if you can find an opinion that matches yours you choose that over a fact that you dont like.

its ernie or the previous idiot whose forgettable name escapes me. you dont like keatings debt so you magically pretend it didnt happen. you sound like SOB when you talk like that.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 4:00pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 3:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 2:49pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:58pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:30pm: Who is "we" sunshine? I am sick or your whining and whinging. 'we' is longlooser, goldmedal, and all the other voices in his head. at least we can read and understand a treasury document which is more than you can do apparently. who told you that? was it voice 13 or is it voice number 14? its called numbers on an offical treasury page. thats the kind of thing you cant understand because if you can find an opinion that matches yours you choose that over a fact that you dont like. its ernie or the previous idiot whose forgettable name escapes me. you dont like keatings debt so you magically pretend it didnt happen. you sound like SOB when you talk like that.

You carry on as if you think I give a crap what you think ..... wrong.

John Smith wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 4:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 4:00pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 3:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 2:49pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:58pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:30pm: Who is "we" sunshine? I am sick or your whining and whinging. 'we' is longlooser, goldmedal, and all the other voices in his head. at least we can read and understand a treasury document which is more than you can do apparently. who told you that? was it voice 13 or is it voice number 14? its called numbers on an offical treasury page. thats the kind of thing you cant understand because if you can find an opinion that matches yours you choose that over a fact that you dont like. its ernie or the previous idiot whose forgettable name escapes me. you dont like keatings debt so you magically pretend it didnt happen. you sound like SOB when you talk like that. You carry on as if you think I give a crap what you think ..... wrong.

it thoroughly discredits you and your capacity to reason and argue when you choose an opinion over and established fact. It makes you look like a drongo. Treasury says Fraser left a $9B debt. You say $40B. because u read it on a blog.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 4:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 4:00pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 3:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 2:49pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:58pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:30pm: Who is "we" sunshine? I am sick or your whining and whinging. 'we' is longlooser, goldmedal, and all the other voices in his head. at least we can read and understand a treasury document which is more than you can do apparently. who told you that? was it voice 13 or is it voice number 14? its called numbers on an offical treasury page. thats the kind of thing you cant understand because if you can find an opinion that matches yours you choose that over a fact that you dont like. its ernie or the previous idiot whose forgettable name escapes me. you dont like keatings debt so you magically pretend it didnt happen. you sound like SOB when you talk like that. You carry on as if you think I give a crap what you think ..... wrong. it thoroughly discredits you and your capacity to reason and argue when you choose an opinion over and established fact. It makes you look like a drongo. Treasury says Fraser left a $9B debt. You say $40B. because u read it on a blog.

Your comment is laughable ..

since when have you been concerned with being discredited? your facts and figures (and I use the term lightly) have been shot full of holes so many time on this forum that if you had any integrity left you would simply disappear and never log onto this site again ..  The only drongo here is you, moron...

John Smith wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 4:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 4:05pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 4:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 4:00pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 3:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 2:49pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:58pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:30pm: Who is "we" sunshine? I am sick or your whining and whinging. 'we' is longlooser, goldmedal, and all the other voices in his head. at least we can read and understand a treasury document which is more than you can do apparently. who told you that? was it voice 13 or is it voice number 14? its called numbers on an offical treasury page. thats the kind of thing you cant understand because if you can find an opinion that matches yours you choose that over a fact that you dont like. its ernie or the previous idiot whose forgettable name escapes me. you dont like keatings debt so you magically pretend it didnt happen. you sound like SOB when you talk like that. You carry on as if you think I give a crap what you think ..... wrong. it thoroughly discredits you and your capacity to reason and argue when you choose an opinion over and established fact. It makes you look like a drongo. Treasury says Fraser left a $9B debt. You say $40B. because u read it on a blog. Your comment is laughable .. since when have you been concerned with being discredited? your facts and figures (and I use the term lightly) have been shot full of holes so many time on this forum that if you had any integrity left you would simply disappear and never log onto this site again ..  The only drongo here is you, moron...

and yet you continue to persist with the $40B fiction... it is YOU who is mightily discredited. Ive always wonderd what goes on in the mind of someone like you who would believe a blog over an authoritative reference. carea to enlighten us as to why u do this? My first thought is that your education is slo limited that you are unaware of the difference between fact and opinion.

Bump

Bump. I will continue to bump this thread to give Andrei Hicks the chance to respond to my evidence regarding his hatred of Kaffirs.

I sent Andrei a polite PM pointing out my previous post. He has not yet replied.

The biggest bludger on this form?


What about Whitey?

he's condemned nearly every person on this forum to burn forever in hellfire & damnation.

At the same time he collects social security from the people he condemns -

talk about biting the hand that feeds his fat body.