If there's an INTRODCUTION section....sorry, I haven't been able to find it.

First and foremost, if you're a shareholder in a public company - particularly in the Mining/Resources sector - I am not interested in the criticism and abuse I'll be receiving after you've read this post.

There's been all this endless talk in the media from all the various political parties....the debt Labor has created, the Boat People, the Greens, the Liberals, the Boat People....this, that, and the other.  The list of different issues is endless.  But above all else, there are three issues that concern me more than anything else:

[list bull-blackball]

Distribution of wealth.

Population growth and immigration.

Privatisation and state jurisdiction of basic utilities, particularly water.

Absolutely everything else takes a back seat to these issues.

When the Coalition (realistically, just the Liberal Party dictating terms to the Nationals) wins a landslide election in September, I have absolutely no doubt they will make huge inroads into reducing our national debt - no question about it.  But they are going to cut, slash, burn, privatise, and deregulate absolutely everything (with perhaps the exception of the Defence Force) to cut our debt.  And in the short term, it will work, although God help the poor and unemployed, because the Coalition won't.  But people who have skills and expertise that are in high demand (e.g. Engineers and Technicians in the mining industry) will be smiling all the way to the bank, but the vast majority of the population who do not have high-demand skills (e.g. the Retail sector, cleaners, hospitality workers, etc.) are going to be told to either work for slave wages comparable to the wages in Asia and India, or become homeless and starve to death.  But this is where I'd like to draw the attention of the Corporate community - when there's an enormous spike in poverty and homelessness, these people will soon turn to crime and our prison population will increase like never before....which we have to pay for.  Several years ago it cost just under $80,000 per year, on average, to imprison one adult inmate in Australia.  Our jails already are overflowing, yet the numbers are increasing.  Many people complain about the lenient sentences handed down to many offenders; this is mainly occurring not because our Judges and Magistrates don't want to lock these people up.  It's because our judiciary is only too well aware our prisons are already bursting at the seams and crippling our economy.  In South Australia (which is already broke), this has reached crisis level, and it's simply getting worse.  Because of the disease of Globalisation, we're currently using imprisonment as an alternative to provding employment.  Unless you're prepared to replace Centrelink benefits with Capital Punishment (which I'm sure Gina Rinehart would adore), we need to drastically rethink how our economy is being run.  We can do one of three things for each person in Australia:

The only realistic solution is providing MUCH greater financial incentive for the unemployed to take on education and training for skills that are in demand (the big problem is that Austudy does not include Rent Assistance), while bringing in some sort of scheme to encourage free birth control for the unemployed.  And forget about the Boat People for a few minutes....let's stop bringing in countless thousands of economic migrants; our greedy businesses are only bringing them in because they have been lucky enough to get training overseas (i.e. we don't have to pay for the training) and they will work for lower wages.  This is what has me seething with rage.  At ground-level, the best changes we could make would be the introduction of Rent Assistance for Austudy recipients, and have two entirely different sets of tax scales - one for normal wage earners and private business owners....and other tax scale for publicly owned, shareholder-based companies.  This would go a long way to helping Australia.  I'd also scrap payroll tax; this is a ridiculous disincentive for Aussie businesses to employ extra people.

The bottom line is, the people who profit from the very basic minerals, resources, and raw materials in Australia cannot expect their profits to keep increasing while our population keeps increasing.  If you want to boost your profits, start looking for initiatives to reduce population growth in this country.  The biggest socio-economic crime ever committed in this country was the introduction of the Baby Bonus by John Howard.  Thank the Lord that both Julia and Tony both agreed to scrap this madness.

It's time for the Mining and Resources sector to wake up and realise they live in a society....not in their own individual bubbles (i.e. their multi-million dollar mansions).  If not, Australia will turn into a country run by billionaire mining corporations paying for the elderly and those in prison.

Did you get a "Flyer" through your letterbox?...not a Clive Palmer one I suspect.

Seriously though AR I get it.The way you are thinking is quite rational.But,and it is a big but,we live in a 2 party system and the middle of the road people like you and realistically me,although I am more to the right,will never really count because politics is not about the peoples wishes but the parties.

In 2000, online, I came across a document which is now virtually impossible to find

The document tabled legislation making it illegal in Australia to take water from any stream, well, river, dam, spring, even if any or all the above were located on one's own property.  Illegal also was the 'gathering' 'collecting' of rain water in any receptacle, tank or other

The legislation was passed in 1995

It's still there, sitting silent, able to enacted at any time


In the years since, I've encountered only a few people who were aware of that legislation.  Clearly, the vast majority of Aussies are unaware it exists and usually refuse to accept that it exists because it sounds counter-intuitive. After all, aren't government currently providing incentives and encouragement re: the installation of water tanks for home use?  Doesn't Birkenhead development have massive water-collection tanks underground and isn't this a great idea?

Nevertheless, the legislation was drafted, put before parliament and passed.  The whore media said nary a word, nor has any politician since

Coincidentally, the US appears to have created similar to identical legislation at around the same time as Oz.  Ditto the UK

Incredibly, right now, farmers and individuals are locked in battle with the US govt. re: use of water on their land and use of water collected

And in the UK, which has approx. as many rainy days as Oz has sunny ones, thousands of people have their water disconnected on regular basis because of inability to pay water bills to foreign owned companies

I can tell you now, I will not be voting for either the two big, fake parties.  They are all one gang. Criminals

I will however, vote for Palmer and hope millions do likewise, for a raft of reasons, one of which being that he does not intend to give preferences to the crooks

Water will become a major issue.  People have no idea what lies ahead.  They'll look back to today and remember it as paradise, hard though it may seem to us right now

They have big plans for us and none of them good.  So enjoy your baths and showers now, enjoy being able to toss sports clothes in the washing machine and filling up your spa and swimming pools.  The day will come, and it's not that far off, when water will cost more than petrol

So don't bother trying to discredit Palmer

All you Paid to Post vermin will not be getting special consideration from your scum employers.  You'll suffer too.  And you won't be picking up loose change for posting for pay online, either.  You'll be redundant.  And God help you if anyone then learns you betrayed your own by posting for pay online

PZ547 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 2:47pm:

In 2000, online, I came across a document which is now virtually impossible to find The document tabled legislation making it illegal in Australia to take water from any stream, well, river, dam, spring, even if any or all the above were located on one's own property.  Illegal also was the 'gathering' 'collecting' of rain water in any receptacle, tank or other

"Taking surface water, from a river, lake, aquifer, spring or soak, requires a licence, unless otherwise stated. Unlicensed water extraction is allowable in all jurisdictions if used for domestic or stock purposes, where landowners hold rights to water under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993, or for miscellaneous purposes such as camping or watering travelling stock. New South Wales additionally recognises 'harvestable rights', where landowners can collect up to 10 percent of average regional rainfall runoff if stored in a 'small' dam (NSW DWE 2009b). Water use licences are required in South Australia and Western Australia if surface water is extracted from 'prescribed' or 'proclaimed' areas respectively but not from other water sources if the taking of water does not affect the water rights of persons downstream (SA DWLBC 2008b; WA Department of Water 2009a)."

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp109/11.html

and have two entirely different sets of tax scales - one for normal wage earners and private business owners....and other tax scale for publicly owned, shareholder-based companies. 

We have that already. One we commonly call income tax, now with a tax-free theshhold of $18000 or thereabouts, which applies to individuals whether employed, self-employed or partners in a partnership.
The other we commonly call company tax, which applies to all incorporated businesses whether listed public companies or small one-person companies.

Our jails already are overflowing, yet the numbers are increasing.  Many people complain about the lenient sentences handed down to many offenders; this is mainly occurring not because our Judges and Magistrates don't want to lock these people up.  It's because our judiciary is only too well aware our prisons are already bursting at the seams and crippling our economy.

The cost of prisons, a state govt function, is not crippling our economy. It is a drop in the bucket compared to health and education.
The judiciary are not guided by any fear of the economy being crippled, although the prison over-crowding may influence them. They are imo more influenced by the modern bleeding heart philosophy as well as not wanting to expose first offenders to a "jail education".

The only realistic solution is providing MUCH greater financial incentive for the unemployed to take on education and training for skills that are in demand (the big problem is that Austudy does not include Rent Assistance), while bringing in some sort of scheme to encourage free birth control for the unemployed.

Billions have been spent for many years on skills training. In many cases the money has gone on providing mickey mouse courses. In others there have just not been the jobs for the people who completed the courses.
Free birth control for the unemployed? If the females are receiving benefits I assume they would have a health care card and could get the pill fairly cheaply. The blokes could give up a packet of smokes and by a packet of condoms couldn't they?

bogarde73 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

and have two entirely different sets of tax scales - one for normal wage earners and private business owners....and other tax scale for publicly owned, shareholder-based companies.  We have that already. One we commonly call income tax, now with a tax-free theshhold of $18000 or thereabouts, which applies to individuals whether employed, self-employed or partners in a partnership. The other we commonly call company tax, which applies to all incorporated businesses whether listed public companies or small one-person companies. Our jails already are overflowing, yet the numbers are increasing.  Many people complain about the lenient sentences handed down to many offenders; this is mainly occurring not because our Judges and Magistrates don't want to lock these people up.  It's because our judiciary is only too well aware our prisons are already bursting at the seams and crippling our economy. The cost of prisons, a state govt function, is not crippling our economy. It is a drop in the bucket compared to health and education. The judiciary are not guided by any fear of the economy being crippled, although the prison over-crowding may influence them. They are imo more influenced by the modern bleeding heart philosophy as well as not wanting to expose first offenders to a "jail education". The only realistic solution is providing MUCH greater financial incentive for the unemployed to take on education and training for skills that are in demand (the big problem is that Austudy does not include Rent Assistance), while bringing in some sort of scheme to encourage free birth control for the unemployed.[/ Billions have been spent for many years on skills training. In many cases the money has gone on providing mickey mouse courses. In others there have just not been the jobs for the people who completed the courses. Free birth control for the unemployed? If the females are receiving benefits I assume they would have a health care card and could get the pill fairly cheaply. The blokes could give up a packet of smokes and by a packet of condoms couldn't they?

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/austudy

If you qualify for Austudy, you may be entitled to other payments and services such as:

Payments & services
•Centrelink Online Services[10]
•Centrepay[11]
•Clean Energy Advance[12]
•Ex-Carer Allowance (Child) Health Care Card[13]
•Fares Allowance[14]
•Income Bank[7]
•Income Support Bonus[15]
•Pension Supplement[16]
•Pharmaceutical Allowance[17]
•Rent Assistance[18]
•Sickness Allowance[19]
•Student Start-up Scholarship

Did someone state that Austudy recipients don't get rent assistance?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 2:58pm:

PZ547 wrote on Jun 25th, 2013 at 2:47pm: In 2000, online, I came across a document which is now virtually impossible to find The document tabled legislation making it illegal in Australia to take water from any stream, well, river, dam, spring, even if any or all the above were located on one's own property.  Illegal also was the 'gathering' 'collecting' of rain water in any receptacle, tank or other "Taking surface water, from a river, lake, aquifer, spring or soak, requires a licence, unless otherwise stated. Unlicensed water extraction is allowable in all jurisdictions if used for domestic or stock purposes, where landowners hold rights to water under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993, or for miscellaneous purposes such as camping or watering travelling stock. New South Wales additionally recognises 'harvestable rights', where landowners can collect up to 10 percent of average regional rainfall runoff if stored in a 'small' dam (NSW DWE 2009b). Water use licences are required in South Australia and Western Australia if surface water is extracted from 'prescribed' or 'proclaimed' areas respectively but not from other water sources if the taking of water does not affect the water rights of persons downstream (SA DWLBC 2008b; WA Department of Water 2009a)." http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp109/11.html

Thanks for that

The legislation to which I've referred was passed in 1995, forbidding domestic rain collection amongst other things.  If you have a link to that, would you mind posting it when convenient thanks

                                    :-/

http://www.awa.asn.au/WMLP_background_information.aspx?LangType=3081

brumbie wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 2:45pm:

Seriously though AR I get it.The way you are thinking is quite rational.But,and it is a big but,we live in a 2 party system and the middle of the road people like you and realistically me,although I am more to the right,will never really count because politics is not about the peoples wishes but the parties.

I appreciate your reply - well put.  Quite strange that a right-wing leaning voter actually acknowledges anyone's opinion othern than their own (however when things turn bad for them, they're the first to SCREAM and demand help).  But what is going to happen in September is the following:

[list bull-blackball]

Abbott will win in a Landslide.

Over the next few years the Liberals will reduce our debt; I do agree on that.

Their will be massive social unrest due to all the cutbacks, and our prison populations will skyrocket.

But....The Greens vote will increase enormously, due to disatisfied Labor voters.  And this is something that will sting Labor.

Basically, what we need to realise in Australia is that for the vast majority of people, Globalisation has been an abject failure, and we need to bin it and bring back well strutured, well planned Tarriffs (not a blind, shotgun approach).  If you're thinking that many Automotive Workers may be overpaid, you might (or might not) be right to some extent, but take a long, hard look at our local expenses (i.e. gas, electricity, etc.) compared to India and most Asian countries.  How about these utility companies in Australia (which should be Government owned) taking a cut in profits?  Not happening.  Our manufacturing sector could cut their pay by 70%, and we'd STILL not be able to compete in a pure Free Trade market.
Eventually Labor will realise we need to restruture our Free Trade economy, or we'll go broke paying Centrelink benefits and imprisonment costs.  This is one of the reasons I'm a huge advocate of reducing population size in Australia; if all we do is export raw materials, we need to reduce our population, not bring in more migrants.

bogarde73 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

We have that already. One we commonly call income tax, now with a tax-free theshhold of $18000 or thereabouts, which applies to individuals whether employed, self-employed or partners in a partnership. The other we commonly call company tax, which applies to all incorporated businesses whether listed public companies or small one-person companies.

No, what I'm talking about is having two ENTIRELY SEPARATE tax scales, not a few additional taxes for companies.  This is not what we have at the moment.
Also, a separate "comapny tax" should be scrapped.


Quote:

The cost of prisons, a state govt function, is not crippling our economy. It is a drop in the bucket compared to health and education.

Education and Healthcare will always be there, and is typically budgeted for, but an ever-rising prison population is a controllable variable, and it is one that is hurting our economy.  There was an article online a few months ago that talked about South Australia's MASSIVELY overburdened prison system - I'll see if I can find it soon.


Quote:

Billions have been spent for many years on skills training. In many cases the money has gone on providing mickey mouse courses.

Ah yes, then that would explain why most of our Trade/Technical Colleges have been shut down decades ago, where now we have an alleged skills shortage.  Corporations and wealthy tax payers simply do not want to pay for the cost of educating and training our workforce, once they leave school.


Quote:

In others there have just not been the jobs for the people who completed the courses.

This is the #1 problem, above all else.



Quote:

Free birth control for the unemployed? If the females are receiving benefits I assume they would have a health care card and could get the pill fairly cheaply.

Currently there is NO Government PBS Subsidy for the Birth Control Pill.  I know this because I have spoken to many women who have tried to get it - doesn't happen.  The issue of the unemployed having lots of children is the biggest problem we face, but people don't appreciate this issue.  At last the Government is subsidising the Morning After Pill for women with Health Care Cards....thank Christ.


Quote:

If you qualify for Austudy, you may be entitled to other payments and services such as: Payments & services •Centrelink Online Services[10] •Centrepay[11] •Clean Energy Advance[12] •Ex-Carer Allowance (Child) Health Care Card[13] •Fares Allowance[14] •Income Bank[7] •Income Support Bonus[15] •Pension Supplement[16] •Pharmaceutical Allowance[17] •Rent Assistance[18] •Sickness Allowance[19] •Student Start-up Scholarship Did someone state that Austudy recipients don't get rent assistance?

The last time I heard, Austudy Recipients do NOT get Rent Assistance.  If this has changed, please do tell....I'd love to stand corrected.
I truly appreciate your reply; you raised some very valid points - not all entirely correct - but valid, nonetheless.  Thanks.  On a side note, I have often been labelled a "soft do-gooder".  Not at all.  I think many, many Aussies need an almighty boot up the a**e, however I want people to realise two things:
[list bull-blackball]

Australians always have, and always will, refuse to work for the types of wages earned in Asia and India.

It's a HECK of a lot cheaper to provide realistic, stable employment (e.g. approx $45k per year) than what it costs to lock people up.

You were going well there, Aussie Realist.

Until I saw this: " bringing in some sort of scheme to encourage free birth control for the unemployed".

So, why single them out, as if they were some disease or species of bug that you wish to eradicate? I
seem to recall a certain European leader made himself very unpopular due to his belief that this was a
correct and acceptable (final?) solution to the issue. I daresay he felt the same about refugees, too.

I'm getting very tired of the way some regard the unemployed as being a genetically different, inferior
sub-species of the genus Homo Sapiens. To hear the way some on here carry on, you'd think they were
born, and will die, unemployed &/or unemployable.

There's nothing wrong with criticising individual cases of unemployment and the reasons and causes of it
but to bundle them all together and treat them the way we do, is truly repugnant.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

PZ574, you appear to be correct with your comment, "In the years since, I've encountered only a few people
who were aware of that legislation.  Clearly, the vast majority of Aussies are unaware it exists and usually
refuse to accept that it exists because it sounds counter-intuitive. After all, aren't government currently providing
incentives and encouragement re: the installation of water tanks for home use?"

I, too, have been met with laughter, ridicule, and questions regarding my sanity on many occasions where I've
mentioned this. Most do not, it seems, know about this putrid little erosion of rights and freedoms. And it has
nothing to do with water-conservation either, but everything to do with our money going into the pockets of
others. In other words, greed.


I also agree with your statement: "I can tell you now, I will not be voting for either the two big, fake parties. 
They are all one gang. Criminals. I will however, vote for Palmer" insofar as I also will not be voting for either
of the 'Majors'.

I don't know about Palmer, though. He's a bit of a 'dark horse' and I'd want to know a hell of a lot more about
both him, and his motives and plans/policies.

And you do it yet again: " The issue of the unemployed having lots of children is the biggest problem
we face, but people don't appreciate this issue."

Sorry, but singling the unemployed out as if the were a sub-human race that needs to be bred into
extinction is unacceptable and extremely offensive.

It's not the unemployed who are bleeding the welfare purse dry, it's the middle-class, who seem to
regard the ATO as their own exclusive bank, which simply holds 'their' money till they want it back.
And always far more than they've paid-in, and smack-all of it means-tested. Nothing gets admitted to
when it comes to Howard's vote-buying by showering the middle-class with bribes at the expense of
those that welfare was intended to support and protect.

It was one of Howard's biggest mistakes, and Labor has failed the country and the genuinely needy
big-time by not abolishing most of it. But they did means-test some of it, and that's a major reason
for the lemming-like rush to commit economic and social suicide by voting for an Abbott 'government'.


But hey, let's kick the unemployed in the face instead...... I've heard a lot of ideas, some good, some
bad, in relation to the unemployment issue, but to suggest that the should (or can) be bred into
extinction really takes the lollipop when it comes to seeing just how offensive and discriminatory we
can be towards the unemployed.

Why would you have children if you're unemployed? Sounds a tad irresponsible.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 26^th, 2013 at 2:01pm:

Why would you have children if you're unemployed? Sounds a tad irresponsible.

So, you can predict at the age of 25 that you'll be unemployed at 30? Don't be naïve.

And if they do happen to be unemployed at 30, why do you persist in believing they got
there by choice, or that they'll remain there from then on till they die/get pension?

Seriously, I can't work out how some of you can believe the bullshyt that gets posted re
the unemployed. All it really shows is that many of you people are either extremely greedy
or monumentally stupid, or have a genuine (and dangerous) vicious/vindictive streak that
bears careful monitoring.

Or possibly even all three.

Kat wrote on Jun 26^th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 26th, 2013 at 2:01pm: Why would you have children if you're unemployed? Sounds a tad irresponsible. So, you can predict at the age of 25 that you'll be unemployed at 30? Don't be naïve. And if they do happen to be unemployed at 30, why do you persist in believing they got there by choice, or that they'll remain there from then on till they die/get pension? Seriously, I can't work out how some of you can believe the bullshyt that gets posted re the unemployed. All it really shows is that many of you people are either extremely greedy or monumentally stupid, or have a genuine (and dangerous) vicious/vindictive streak that bears careful monitoring. Or possibly even all three.

In context, my statement was having children while unemployed, and not unemployed in some projected future. Still, the problem of people not financially well off breeding is an issue. Probably not so much in Australia, but in developing countries it really is an issue, because it's the western tax-payer who has to keep funding these countries because of their own irresponsibility.

You can hypothesize about people being mean and nasty all you want, but people are still going to be annoyed when they fund these countries by the billions and they still over-populate. The problems there are deeply instantiated and not some problem that may happen in the future.

bogarde73 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:

The cost of prisons, a state govt function, is not crippling our economy. It is a drop in the bucket compared to health and education. The judiciary are not guided by any fear of the economy being crippled, although the prison over-crowding may influence them. They are imo more influenced by the modern bleeding heart philosophy as well as not wanting to expose first offenders to a "jail education".

Please check out the following article below:

Triple-w.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australias-prisons-are-bulging-at-the-seams-with-critical-bed-shortages-for-mentally-ill-inmates/story-e6frea6u-1226421994921

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 26^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

In context, my statement was having children while unemployed, and not unemployed in some projected future. Still, the problem of people not financially well off breeding is an issue.

I've been trying to raise awareness about this particular issue....for years.  But I must stress that people having children, where they become unemployed at some future stage....they're an entirely different issue.  The problem I have is with the unemployed falling pregnant, then just shrugging their shoulders.


Quote:

Probably not so much in Australia, but in developing countries it really is an issue, because it's the western tax-payer who has to keep funding these countries because of their own irresponsibility.

Our Government needs to tell the leaders of these 3rd world countries that they need to sort out their corruption and overpopulation issues, or we will gradually reduce the aid and food we deliver to these countries.  Simple.


Quote:

You can hypothesize about people being mean and nasty all you want, but people are still going to be annoyed when they fund these countries by the billions and they still over-populate. The problems there are deeply instantiated and not some problem that may happen in the future.

Kat wrote on Jun 26^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

You were going well there, Aussie Realist. Until I saw this: " bringing in some sort of scheme to encourage free birth control for the unemployed". So, why single them out, as if they were some disease or species of bug that you wish to eradicate? I seem to recall a certain European leader made himself very unpopular due to his belief that this was a correct and acceptable (final?) solution to the issue. I daresay he felt the same about refugees, too. I'm getting very tired of the way some regard the unemployed as being a genetically different, inferior sub-species of the genus Homo Sapiens. To hear the way some on here carry on, you'd think they were born, and will die, unemployed &/or unemployable. There's nothing wrong with criticising individual cases of unemployment and the reasons and causes of it but to bundle them all together and treat them the way we do, is truly repugnant. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PZ574, you appear to be correct with your comment, "In the years since, I've encountered only a few people who were aware of that legislation.  Clearly, the vast majority of Aussies are unaware it exists and usually refuse to accept that it exists because it sounds counter-intuitive. After all, aren't government currently providing incentives and encouragement re: the installation of water tanks for home use?" I, too, have been met with laughter, ridicule, and questions regarding my sanity on many occasions where I've mentioned this. Most do not, it seems, know about this putrid little erosion of rights and freedoms. And it has nothing to do with water-conservation either, but everything to do with our money going into the pockets of others. In other words, greed. I also agree with your statement: "I can tell you now, I will not be voting for either the two big, fake parties.  They are all one gang. Criminals. I will however, vote for Palmer" insofar as I also will not be voting for either of the 'Majors'. I don't know about Palmer, though. He's a bit of a 'dark horse' and I'd want to know a hell of a lot more about both him, and his motives and plans/policies.

Sorry, but I think my comments have been taken out of context.
By no means am I inferring that the unemployed are in any way genetically different, inferior, or a
sub-species.  Absolutely no way at all.  In fact I do believe that the vast majority of the unemployed in Australia are without work because of the vile scourge of Globalisation and corporate greed.  In short, most corporations will source their employees where they can exploit slave-wages.  In my opinion, this is the main reason why the vast majority of the unemployed in Australia are without work.  But the main issue that concerns me in Australia (along with the privaisation of utilities/water) is that of distribution of wealth, and while I want to see the Government have much more influence on our Trade and Industrial Relations laws (i.e. try to undo the damage Globalisation has done....and continues to do), I believe it would do untold good if the poor/unemployed were to try and avoid having children....until their financial circumstances improve.  I do not mean to ridicule, marginalise, or isolate the poor/unemployed (and I take great offence at any possible inference this was my intention), but from a socio-economic perspective, I think we need to make responsible, realistic decisions.  And one of these decisions is to help the poor/unemployed avoid having children as best as possible....while they're unemployed.  But at the same time I believe we could do a great deal more to help these people get back on their feet.  If you feel that the unemployed should be encouraged to simply do as they please, in terms of relationships and families, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

This is only my opinion, but understand that I am not ridiculing people for being poor/unemployed.  Nor should they be made to feel inferior or marginalised.

Aussie Realist wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

If there's an INTRODCUTION section....sorry, I haven't been able to find it. First and foremost, if you're a shareholder in a public company - particularly in the Mining/Resources sector - I am not interested in the criticism and abuse I'll be receiving after you've read this post.

But, you should be, as their opinion does matter. Who else, after-all, has been keeping Aussieland out of the 'red' for the past few decades, if it's not the mining companies?


Quote:

There's been all this endless talk in the media from all the various political parties....the debt Labor has created, the Boat People, the Greens, the Liberals, the Boat People....this, that, and the other.  The list of different issues is endless.  But above all else, there are three issues that concern me more than anything else: [list bull-blackball] Distribution of wealth. Population growth and immigration. Privatisation and state jurisdiction of basic utilities, particularly water. Absolutely everything else takes a back seat to these issues.

Aussieland's poor economic performance should take a back seat to the myth that, 'virtual' wealth's, redistribution would solve any problem?

How do you redistribute something that doesn't exist? The real problem is that there is no wealth. And Population growth and migration are major issues in that this country desperately needs a bigger population.


Quote:

When the Coalition (realistically, just the Liberal Party dictating terms to the Nationals) wins a landslide election in September, I have absolutely no doubt they will make huge inroads into reducing our national debt - no question about it.  But they are going to cut, slash, burn, privatise, and deregulate absolutely everything (with perhaps the exception of the Defence Force) to cut our debt.  And in the short term, it will work, although God help the poor and unemployed, because the Coalition won't.

We will need to be subjected to bouts of 'Austeria' regardless of which major party is in government, because neither of them have solution to what is a self inflicted problem.


Quote:

But people who have skills and expertise that are in high demand (e.g. Engineers and Technicians in the mining industry) will be smiling all the way to the bank, but the vast majority of the population who do not have high-demand skills (e.g. the Retail sector, cleaners, hospitality workers, etc.) are going to be told to either work for slave wages comparable to the wages in Asia and India, or become homeless and starve to death.  But this is where I'd like to draw the attention of the Corporate community - when there's an enormous spike in poverty and homelessness, these people will soon turn to crime and our prison population will increase like never before....which we have to pay for.  Several years ago it cost just under $80,000 per year, on average, to imprison one adult inmate in Australia.  Our jails already are overflowing, yet the numbers are increasing.  Many people complain about the lenient sentences handed down to many offenders; this is mainly occurring not because our Judges and Magistrates don't want to lock these people up.  It's because our judiciary is only too well aware our prisons are already bursting at the seams and crippling our economy.  In South Australia (which is already broke), this has reached crisis level, and it's simply getting worse.  Because of the disease of Globalisation, we're currently using imprisonment as an alternative to provding employment.  Unless you're prepared to replace Centrelink benefits with Capital Punishment (which I'm sure Gina Rinehart would adore), we need to drastically rethink how our economy is being run.  We can do one of three things for each person in Australia: The only realistic solution is providing MUCH greater financial incentive for the unemployed to take on education and training for skills that are in demand (the big problem is that Austudy does not include Rent Assistance),

We all have a right to choose our own careers, and no society should have to adjust that choice to suit the poor economic management of a government.


Quote:

while bringing in some sort of scheme to encourage free birth control for the unemployed.

Your'e saying, that because the government has failed to provide needed jobs, these people should further bow their heads and accept that they also don't have the right to have children.


Quote:

And forget about the Boat People for a few minutes....let's stop bringing in countless thousands of economic migrants; our greedy businesses are only bringing them in because they have been lucky enough to get training overseas (i.e. we don't have to pay for the training) and they will work for lower wages.

The skill levels in this country are low, because Aussie always aims low. And anything that helps with this problem must, by default, be a solution.


Quote:

This is what has me seething with rage. At ground-level, the best changes we could make would be the introduction of Rent Assistance for Austudy recipients,

Why should anyone living in a great big empty country, that has so few people, need to be paying so much rent that they need assistance?

Aussie Realist, with all due respects, this post of yours is really just a pile of puke. 

Welcome to the forum.

GAH!!

Just composed a response to Morning Mist and Aussie Realist, finished it, proof-read it, hit
enter to go to the next line, and....POOF!!!

Gone!

And it wasn't just a one-liner, either...  >:(

GA wrote on Jun 27^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

But, you should be, as their opinion does matter. Who else, after-all, has been keeping Aussieland out of the 'red' for the past few decades, if it's not the mining companies?

The oil and mining companies are the #1 insidious evil on this planet.  Those resources belong to ALL of us....not those who can simply afford the capital to dig it out of the ground for their own profit.


Quote:

Aussieland's poor economic performance should take a back seat to the myth that, 'virtual' wealth's, redistribution would solve any problem? How do you redistribute something that doesn't exist? The real problem is that there is no wealth. And Population growth and migration are major issues in that this country desperately needs a bigger population.

"With all due respect", your comment above?  Utter bullsh*t.  Of all your comments, this is the most incorrect.  There is PLENTY of wealth in Australia....it's being dug up by mining companies at the moment and sold to Asia/China so the mining companies can make profits.  If I had my choice, those mines should be Government owned, where all the profits are invested into Australian infrastructure and renewable energy programs.  NOT the pockets of miners and shareholders.


Quote:

We will need to be subjected to bouts of 'Austeria' regardless of which major party is in government, because neither of them have solution to what is a self inflicted problem.

You're spot on in saying it's a self-inflicted problem.....GLOBALISATION.  If we need to pay off debts, no problem....pay them off over 30+ years by taxing the wealthiest heavily.  If they don't like it, they can leave. But if you want to introduce Austerity measures, like they're trying to in Greece, I'd be too frightened to walk out my front door for all the povety and violent crime you'd get.


Quote:

We all have a right to choose our own careers, and no society should have to adjust that choice to suit the poor economic management of a government.

Up until the introduction of Globalisation and widespread Privatisation, Australia was doing well and many more people had jobs.  But now almost everything in Australia has been moved offshore, and we're now scratching our heads as to why we're having such massive social problems.
The reason a Government needs to intervene, in regards to different career options and distribution of wealth, is that the alternative is enormous Centrelink Queues and an ever-growing prison population.  Which not only costs a heck of a lot more than providing jobs, but is something both you and I pay for.  Take your pick - Government intervention....or massive unemployment, UNDERemployment, and prison levels (which is what we're now getting).  What the corporations are refusing to pay in wages to Australian employees, the rest of us are having to make up for in taxes (many, many times over) to build and manage our prisons.


Quote:

Your'e saying, that because the government has failed to provide needed jobs, these people should further bow their heads and accept that they also don't have the right to have children.

Already answered this issue.  I am not vilifying the unemployed, or saying they should never have children.  Only while they're unemployed should they be encouraged not to have children.  But we should be doing everything in our power to help them get back on their feet as quickly as we can with better benefits and free education and training, so they can have children as soon as they want to.


Quote:

The skill levels in this country are low, because Aussie always aims low. And anything that helps with this problem must, by default, be a solution.

For all their stuffs up and mistakes, the Labor Government is doing everything they can to invest in education to fix this problem.  The Liberal's alternative is to import economic migrants who already have been trained, will work for lower wages, and let the unemployed in Australia become homeless and starve.  Unfortunately, when people have no money and get hungry (or have a drug habit to feed), they turn to crime and end up in prison, where (like I said) you and I have to pay for them.


Quote:

Why should anyone living in a great big empty country, that has so few people, need to be paying so much rent that they need assistance?

This is because the areas of Australia that are liveable and have infrastructure are actually very, very small.  Most of Australia is an inhospitable desert, and people don't live there.  Thought you'd be enlightened enough to work that out, but I stand corrected.


Quote:

Aussie Realist, with all due respects, this post of yours is really just a pile of puke.

With all due respect, by no means am I waving a Labor Party flag (far from it, as they have many problems to contend with)....I don't agree with the Liberal's vile brand of neo-coprorate fascism to solve this nation's problems, as all it does is create a massive division in wealth and fill prisons....just so shareholders in our mines and banks can smile.  That's not what I'll be supporting.


Quote:

Welcome to the forum.

NOT from you.

Kat wrote on Jun 26^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:

And you do it yet again: " The issue of the unemployed having lots of children is the biggest problem we face, but people don't appreciate this issue." Sorry, but singling the unemployed out as if the were a sub-human race that needs to be bred into extinction is unacceptable and extremely offensive. It's not the unemployed who are bleeding the welfare purse dry, it's the middle-class, who seem to regard the ATO as their own exclusive bank, which simply holds 'their' money till they want it back. And always far more than they've paid-in, and smack-all of it means-tested. Nothing gets admitted to when it comes to Howard's vote-buying by showering the middle-class with bribes at the expense of those that welfare was intended to support and protect. It was one of Howard's biggest mistakes, and Labor has failed the country and the genuinely needy big-time by not abolishing most of it. But they did means-test some of it, and that's a major reason for the lemming-like rush to commit economic and social suicide by voting for an Abbott 'government'. But hey, let's kick the unemployed in the face instead...... I've heard a lot of ideas, some good, some bad, in relation to the unemployment issue, but to suggest that the should (or can) be bred into extinction really takes the lollipop when it comes to seeing just how offensive and discriminatory we can be towards the unemployed.

Kat

I appreciate your comments, particularly those I've highlighted in red, where I'm an enormous advocate of Means Testing in all Government plans and incentives.  In regards to the unemployed - you have misunderstood what I've tried to say.  I am not vilifying the unemployed, or saying they should never have children.  Only while they're unemployed should they be encouraged not to have children.  But we should be doing everything in our power to help them get back on their feet as quickly as we can with better benefits and free education and training, so they can have children as soon as they want to.

If I am vilifying the unemployed and think they are "inferior" and should be prevented from breeding as a "final solution", as you seem to imply, why would I make comments that we should be assisting them even more with better benefits, (free) education and training....so we can help get them back on their feet as quickly as possible so they can have children, if they so choose?  If I think the unemployed are such a vile scourge that should be bred into extinction, why would I want to help them even more than we do now?  (Please read Reply #21 in this Post - comments re: unemployed - toward the bottom).  I take great offence at your implications that I despise the unemployed and think they are inferior, as this is not the case.

On a side note, I wouldn't p*ss on John Howard, let alone vote for him or the Liberals.  At least not with their current policies.

Welcome AR, you make a lot of sense.

Just one suggestion: try dividing your posts into shorter paragraphs. A large wad of type is difficult to read.

Cheers and good luck!

Aussie Realist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

GA wrote on Jun 27th, 2013 at 12:33pm: But, you should be, as their opinion does matter. Who else, after-all, has been keeping Aussieland out of the 'red' for the past few decades, if it's not the mining companies? The oil and mining companies are the #1 insidious evil on this planet.  Those resources belong to ALL of us....not those who can simply afford the capital to dig it out of the ground for their own profit.

You are attempting to impose communism, when free enterprise is a fundamental right. These companies pay taxes and are Australian based. Besides it's all irrelevant, as we don't eat minerals and oil (or the money from them). Without these enterprises, Aussieland would have been bankrupt decades ago.


Aussie Realist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

GA wrote on Jun 27th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Aussieland's poor economic performance should take a back seat to the myth that, 'virtual' wealth's, redistribution would solve any problem? How do you redistribute something that doesn't exist? The real problem is that there is no wealth. And Population growth and migration are major issues in that this country desperately needs a bigger population. "With all due respect", your comment above?  Utter bullsh*t.  Of all your comments, this is the most incorrect.  There is PLENTY of wealth in Australia....it's being dug up by mining companies at the moment and sold to Asia/China so the mining companies can make profits.  If I had my choice, those mines should be Government owned, where all the profits are invested into Australian infrastructure and renewable energy programs.  NOT the pockets of miners and shareholders.

If the wealthy all kept their money in Scrooge McDuck type 'money bins' or as wharehouses full of goods, then you might have a case. But how this 'wealth' is being kept is as a figure on a bank balance. And,in the banks there is no actual pile of money that corresponds with that figure. Their money, in other words, is virtual. So, implementation of your 'spiteful Aussie' (is there any other kind?) solution would be completely ineffective. In fact it would be disastrous.


Aussie Realist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

GA wrote on Jun 27th, 2013 at 12:33pm: We will need to be subjected to bouts of 'Austeria' regardless of which major party is in government, because neither of them have solution to what is a self inflicted problem. You're spot on in saying it's a self-inflicted problem.....GLOBALISATION.  If we need to pay off debts, no problem....pay them off over 30+ years by taxing the wealthiest heavily.  If they don't like it, they can leave. But if you want to introduce Austerity measures, like they're trying to in Greece, I'd be too frightened to walk out my front door for all the povety and violent crime you'd get.

Globalization, of the kind that you are referring to, has actually kept this country afloat. We would make no cars, have no airlines, no computers etc, etc if it weren't for multinational companies. And the point was that 'Austerity', in a great big resource rich country, is inexcusable. It is our 'Aussieness' that is keeping us down. If, for example, the Japanese had won the military war, then Australia would have become an economic powerhouse. Instead they won the economic war anyhow. And congratulations to them.


Aussie Realist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

GA wrote on Jun 27th, 2013 at 12:33pm: We all have a right to choose our own careers, and no society should have to adjust that choice to suit the poor economic management of a government. Up until the introduction of Globalization and widespread Privatization, Australia was doing well and many more people had jobs.  But now almost everything in Australia has been moved offshore, and we're now scratching our heads as to why we're having such massive social problems.

Aussie businesses are uncompetitive, inefficient manufacture & poor efficiency of scale lead to high prices. The high prices attract cheap imports. Coles importing bread from Ireland, is an example. It is the emergence of Aussie and the demise of the 'Orstralian' that has lead us into a crisis point. Which, don't get me wrong, isn't the current, Gillard, financial shortfall.


Quote:

The reason a Government needs to intervene, in regards to different career options and distribution of wealth, is that the alternative is enormous Centrelink Queues and an ever-growing prison population.

How can it accurately be stated that a government 'intervenes'? It is in charge, then how can
it not accept responsibility for its own failings? In a big underdeveloped country, unskilled work should be the most readily available employment position.

(continued)


Quote:

Which not only costs a heck of a lot more than providing jobs, but is something both you and I pay for.  Take your pick - Government intervention....or massive unemployment, UNDERemployment, and prison levels (which is what we're now getting).  What the corporations are refusing to pay in wages to Australian employees, the rest of us are having to make up for in taxes (many, many times over) to build and manage our prisons.

Once again, a government can't intervene, they are the one's in charge. It is their duty to run the country in a way that provides full employment, or get the hell out of the way and let someone else do it. And, Aussie came here as a prisoner, so what eles do you expect?


Aussie Realist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

GA wrote on Jun 27th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Your'e saying, that because the government has failed to provide needed jobs, these people should further bow their heads and accept that they also don't have the right to have children. Already answered this issue.  I am not vilifying the unemployed, or saying they should never have children.  Only while they're unemployed should they be encouraged not to have children.  But we should be doing everything in our power to help them get back on their feet as quickly as we can with better benefits and free education and training, so they can have children as soon as they want to.

You are holding them responcible for their own situation. When, they should have to sacrifice nothing. Your attitude is that of a typical defeatist/Aussie. What I mean: "we should be doing everything in our power to help them get back on their feet as quickly as we can with better benefits and free education and training" When, they don't want 'better benifits or retraining', they want employment.


Aussie Realist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

GA wrote on Jun 27th, 2013 at 12:33pm: The skill levels in this country are low, because Aussie always aims low. And anything that helps with this problem must, by default, be a solution. For all their stuffs up and mistakes, the Labor Government is doing everything they can to invest in education to fix this problem.  The Liberal's alternative is to import economic migrants who already have been trained, will work for lower wages, and let the unemployed in Australia become homeless and starve.  Unfortunately, when people have no money and get hungry (or have a drug habit to feed), they turn to crime and end up in prison, where (like I said) you and I have to pay for them.

The problem is entirely consistent with a country that has been populated by convicts & colonial British. Aussie will always aim low, they are people with low self esteem. As long as Aussie is in charge, we will be needing the skills that come with people who are from self respecting freedom loving countries. Chuck Aussie out, and all that starts to change. Keep Aussie in, and we will end up being ruled by another country. This is inevitable, and is a rule of Nature. We, as Aussies, are unfit to survive, socially, economically or militarily. 


Aussie Realist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

GA wrote on Jun 27th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Why should anyone living in a great big empty country, that has so few people, need to be paying so much rent that they need assistance? This is because the areas of Australia that are liveable and have infrastructure are actually very, very small.  Most of Australia is an inhospitable desert, and people don't live there.  Thought you'd be enlightened enough to work that out, but I stand corrected.

Don't tell that to the residents of Phoenix Arizona. It's Aussie's insecurity and consequent need to huddle together, that's why this country is so underdeveloped. An American might ask why it is that we have no new states and no new cities. (and why we pay such high prices and high taxes etc., etc.)


Aussie Realist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

GA wrote on Jun 27th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Aussie Realist, with all due respects, this post of yours is really just a pile of puke. With all due respect, by no means am I waving a Labor Party flag (far from it, as they have many problems to contend with)....I don't agree with the Liberal's vile brand of neo-coprorate fascism to solve this nation's problems, as all it does is create a massive division in wealth and fill prisons....just so shareholders in our mines and banks can smile.  That's not what I'll be supporting.

The left gives us a measure of social justice, the right gives some economic stability.

It looks like you are trying to avoid making your position clear. Maybe you can now understand why politicians behave the way they do.


Aussie Realist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

GA wrote on Jun 27th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Welcome to the forum. NOT from you

Why should I welcome someone who is only offering an opinion with no supporting argument.