These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture:

1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works.


And here’s another one worth considering.


2.    Seems we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second group didn't.

Truly contradicting food for thought, enough to give indigestion thinking about these.

As for pensioners, yes, they did work for their retirement pension, it was an added extra on the tax back then when it was done (1940's?) and it was a separate financial situation, but then, it was all put into consolidated revenue, and lost therein....never to stand out alone on its own merits again.

What was that slant Peter Garrett did on the words of our famous poem....I love a plundered country....A land of corporate gains.....

Gnads wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture: 1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works. And here’s another one worth considering. 2.    Seems we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second group didn't.

So, you don't think the aged pension is 'welfare'?

But for anyone else it is, and they shouldn't be entitled to it?

Are you one of those who think DSP recips or the unemployed have never worked to 'earn' their
paltry 'benefits', and so are somehow 'undeserving'?

A bloke in his 50s loses his job and has to go on the dole. So you think the 35-odd years he's
worked count for nothing? That he hasn't 'worked for' his right to the dole?

But the aged pension is sacrosanct because they 'worked for it'?

Gnads wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture: 1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works. And here’s another one worth considering. 2.    Seems we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second group didn't.

So you contend that Muslims (the first group) worked for their money and gun owners are lazy butt-heads who couldn't buy a bullet without a hand out?

Sophia wrote on Apr 19^th, 2014 at 10:52pm:

Truly contradicting food for thought, enough to give indigestion thinking about these. As for pensioners, yes, they did work for their retirement pension, it was an added extra on the tax back then when it was done (1940's?) and it was a separate financial situation, but then, it was all put into consolidated revenue, and lost therein....never to stand out alone on its own merits again. What was that slant Peter Garrett did on the words of our famous poem....I love a plundered country....A land of corporate gains.....

! Nice  8-)

Kat wrote on Apr 19^th, 2014 at 10:59pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 18th, 2014 at 7:25pm: These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture: 1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works. And here’s another one worth considering. 2.    Seems we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second group didn't. Quote: So, you don't think the aged pension is 'welfare'? Well no ... not for those who worked to retirement age & weren't in a job that had superannuation. [quote]But for anyone else it is, and they shouldn't be entitled to it?

They are your words not mine


Quote:

Are you one of those who think DSP recips or the unemployed have never worked to 'earn' their paltry 'benefits', and so are somehow 'undeserving'?

Don't think I mentioned the DSP or the unemployed.


Quote:

A bloke in his 50s loses his job and has to go on the dole. So you think the 35-odd years he's worked count for nothing? That he hasn't 'worked for' his right to the dole?

Absolutely not ... there is a difference between that situation & the generational poverty/welfare that certain groups in our society have only ever aspired to.


Quote:

But the aged pension is sacrosanct because they 'worked for it'?

Yes it is .... especially for those who have worked.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 1:20am:

Gnads wrote on Apr 18th, 2014 at 7:25pm: These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture: 1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works. And here’s another one worth considering. 2.    Seems we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second group didn't. [quote]So you contend that Muslims (the first group) worked for their money and gun owners are lazy butt-heads who couldn't buy a bullet without a hand out?

I'll have what ever you're on ..... what a spaced out conclusion that is ;D

Gnads wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

Kat wrote on Apr 19th, 2014 at 10:59pm: Gnads wrote on Apr 18th, 2014 at 7:25pm: These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture: 1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works. And here’s another one worth considering. 2.    Seems we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second group didn't. Quote: So, you don't think the aged pension is 'welfare'? Well no ... not for those who worked to retirement age & weren't in a job that had superannuation. And nor do I. [quote]But for anyone else it is, and they shouldn't be entitled to it? They are your words not mine Yes, they were, but it was a question for clarification purposes, not a statement of how you think. [quote]Are you one of those who think DSP recips or the unemployed have never worked to 'earn' their paltry 'benefits', and so are somehow 'undeserving'?

Don't think I mentioned the DSP or the unemployed. Again, I was merely seeking clarification as to whether they were
included in your second group, nothing more.


Quote:

A bloke in his 50s loses his job and has to go on the dole. So you think the 35-odd years he's worked count for nothing? That he hasn't 'worked for' his right to the dole?

Absolutely not ... there is a difference between that situation & the generational poverty/welfare that certain groups in
our society have only ever aspired to. Agree. I don't support or condone generational welfare dependence or rorting the
system any more than the next person.


Quote:

But the aged pension is sacrosanct because they 'worked for it'?

Yes it is .... especially for those who have worked. Agree. They've 'done their time', now they deserve their retirement.
[/quote]


Well, I'm shocked, frankly. Shocked and stunned.

A response to a welfare-related post of mine which actually addresses what I posted in a sensible, lucid manner
and doesn't turn into a personal attack or a tirade of unwarranted abuse.

Thank you, Gnads.

Kat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 6:18pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 20th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Kat wrote on Apr 19th, 2014 at 10:59pm: Gnads wrote on Apr 18th, 2014 at 7:25pm: These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture: 1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works. And here’s another one worth considering. 2.    Seems we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second group didn't. Quote: So, you don't think the aged pension is 'welfare'? Well no ... not for those who worked to retirement age & weren't in a job that had superannuation. And nor do I. [quote]But for anyone else it is, and they shouldn't be entitled to it? They are your words not mine Yes, they were, but it was a question for clarification purposes, not a statement of how you think. [quote]Are you one of those who think DSP recips or the unemployed have never worked to 'earn' their paltry 'benefits', and so are somehow 'undeserving'? Don't think I mentioned the DSP or the unemployed. Again, I was merely seeking clarification as to whether they were included in your second group, nothing more. [quote]A bloke in his 50s loses his job and has to go on the dole. So you think the 35-odd years he's worked count for nothing? That he hasn't 'worked for' his right to the dole?

Absolutely not ... there is a difference between that situation & the generational poverty/welfare that certain groups in
our society have only ever aspired to. Agree. I don't support or condone generational welfare dependence or rorting the
system any more than the next person.


Quote:

But the aged pension is sacrosanct because they 'worked for it'?

Yes it is .... especially for those who have worked. Agree. They've 'done their time', now they deserve their retirement.
[/quote]


Well, I'm shocked, frankly. Shocked and stunned.

A response to a welfare-related post of mine which actually addresses what I posted in a sensible, lucid manner
and doesn't turn into a personal attack or a tirade of unwarranted abuse.

Thank you, Gnads.[/quote]

Good grief ... I must need a drink ;D

Anyways no problemo ...... your questioning wasn't borderline pedantics or arrogance.

Shyte careful now... or we'll be accused of being a mutual admiration club or poofs. ;D

Quote:

Well no ... not for those who worked to retirement age & weren't in a job that had superannuation.

I am pretty certain that once a male turns 65...he is eligible for the aged pension whether he has worked even just half an hour in his entire life.

Sophia wrote on Apr 19^th, 2014 at 10:52pm:

Truly contradicting food for thought, enough to give indigestion thinking about these. As for pensioners, yes, they did work for their retirement pension, it was an added extra on the tax back then when it was done (1940's?) and it was a separate financial situation, but then, it was all put into consolidated revenue, and lost therein....never to stand out alone on its own merits again. What was that slant Peter Garrett did on the words of our famous poem....I love a plundered country....A land of corporate gains.....

total rubbish, the old age pension has always been financed from general revenue and was commenced in 1909, not the 1940's.

Gnads wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 6:24pm:

Good grief ... I must need a drink ;D Anyways no problemo ...... your questioning wasn't borderline pedantics or arrogance. Shyte careful now... or we'll be accused of being a mutual admiration club or poofs. ;D

God forbid! :o

ian wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 7:10pm:

Sophia wrote on Apr 19th, 2014 at 10:52pm: Truly contradicting food for thought, enough to give indigestion thinking about these. As for pensioners, yes, they did work for their retirement pension, it was an added extra on the tax back then when it was done (1940's?) and it was a separate financial situation, but then, it was all put into consolidated revenue, and lost therein....never to stand out alone on its own merits again. What was that slant Peter Garrett did on the words of our famous poem....I love a plundered country....A land of corporate gains..... total rubbish, the old age pension has always been financed from general revenue and was commenced in 1909, not the 1940's.

From what I was told some time many years ago, by a very pro-active pensioner female, fighing for pensioners rights, that the pension, was boosted something further by a certain percentage, and put into a separate area of finance, specifically for pension old age payment, and yes, it was separate, but then put all together at some stage after the 1940's.
I can specifically remember being told that.
Might do some searching, but in the meantime Ian, if you have any links I would like to read some more about it...but then again, I don't think you do links?

;D Lols Ian doesn't do much else but pontificate his intelligence & tipping shyte on others.

Yep, I was right. After a little searching....here is a paragraph I think explains what I was trying to explain about separate areas of tax monies.

There was a further development of specific relevance to social security in 1945. The Commonwealth split the personal income tax into two components. One, the social services contribution, was to be used exclusively to finance social security cash payments. Revenue from the contribution was paid into the National Welfare Fund, from which all such cash payments were to be made, but there was no link between personal contributions and entitlements. The fund was supplemented by subventions from payroll tax and general revenue. In the event, the social services contribution was again merged into a single personal income tax in 1950. All cash payments are now made direct from general revenue

Doubts had arisen during the early forties about the constitutional validity of the Commonwealth legislation in respect of cash payments other than age and invalid pensions, which were specifically within the powers of the Commonwealth. Accordingly, a referendum was held in 1946 under which the Commonwealth sought an extension of its powers in the areas of social security and health. The referendum was carried. In 1947 the various social security cash payments were consolidated into a single Social Services Act

And as I was saying, all that separate extra tax paid, specifically for the pension, means, every pensioner that worked and paid taxes in all that time, deserved the pension, despite being asset tested.

Example re: the asset test, a farmer, having lived and worked all his hard life on a farm, say, 30 acres, the asset test would render him not elligible for the pension, because, the main home up to 5 acres is not asset tested, but the rest of the land is, and although it cannot be subdivided, is making it difficult for a farmer to stay at his home and land, because of that, even if it is only worth say, at the time, a couple of hundred thousand, but, someone living in a manor of splendor, up to 5 acres, and with a value of $2million, can get the full pension, but not that poor farmer, who would be forced to leave his home, and most don't wish to.

The point is, that all had paid taxes for their pension, they have a deserved right to it, despite any assets that were saved for show of something, or pizzed against a wall.
It should have made no difference, all pensioners should get the full pension. They earnt it via paying the extra tax specifically for that reason.

Now, the farmers asset test is changed, as this was such an unfair hardship, if one is on a property more than 5 acres, for 20 years or more, that property does not come under the asset testing for an aged pension now.
And about bloody time too! >:(

Sophia wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

Yep, I was right. After a little searching....here is a paragraph I think explains what I was trying to explain about separate areas of tax monies. There was a further development of specific relevance to social security in 1945. The Commonwealth split the personal income tax into two components. One, the social services contribution, was to be used exclusively to finance social security cash payments. Revenue from the contribution was paid into the National Welfare Fund, from which all such cash payments were to be made, but there was no link between personal contributions and entitlements. The fund was supplemented by subventions from payroll tax and general revenue. In the event, the social services contribution was again merged into a single personal income tax in 1950. All cash payments are now made direct from general revenue

No, you were wrong. despite the fact that you claimed the aged pension had a specific individual funding which it does not and never has you also missed the relevant sentence. I have helpfully underlined it for you.

ian wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 10:01pm:

Sophia wrote on Apr 20th, 2014 at 9:53pm: Yep, I was right. After a little searching....here is a paragraph I think explains what I was trying to explain about separate areas of tax monies. There was a further development of specific relevance to social security in 1945. The Commonwealth split the personal income tax into two components. [color=#ff0000]One, the social services contribution, was to be used exclusively to finance social security cash payments. Revenue from the contribution was paid into the National Welfare Fund, from which all such cash payments were to be made, but there was no link between personal contributions and entitlements. The fund was supplemented by subventions from payroll tax and general revenue. In the event, the social services contribution was again merged into a single personal income tax in 1950. All cash payments are now made direct from general revenue[/color] No, you were wrong. despite the fact that you claimed the aged pension had a specific individual funding which it does not and never has you also missed the relevant sentence. I have helpfully underlined it for you.

My point as underlined above, there were separate areas for specific payments, and then there were no links between them, because they had merged 'again' into the general revenue.
Yes, all in the 1940's.

Gnads wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture: 1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works. And here’s another one worth considering. 2.    Seems we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second group didn't.

Thats gold  ;D

You know whats really funny is in Europe they imported millions of muslims to come and work there to generate taxes to provide pensions for the retired and when they got they there they all promptly went on the dole ... haha funny poo  ;D

Garfield wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 10:25pm:

You know whats really funny is in Europe they imported millions of muslims to come and work there to generate taxes to provide pensions for the retired and when they got they there they all promptly went on the dole ... haha funny poo  ;D

It strengthens their moral law!

Did you say all Muslims in the UK are on the dole, btw?  :o

Sophia wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 10:17pm:

ian wrote on Apr 20th, 2014 at 10:01pm: Sophia wrote on Apr 20th, 2014 at 9:53pm: Yep, I was right. After a little searching....here is a paragraph I think explains what I was trying to explain about separate areas of tax monies. There was a further development of specific relevance to social security in 1945. The Commonwealth split the personal income tax into two components. [color=#ff0000]One, the social services contribution, was to be used exclusively to finance social security cash payments. Revenue from the contribution was paid into the National Welfare Fund, from which all such cash payments were to be made, but there was no link between personal contributions and entitlements. The fund was supplemented by subventions from payroll tax and general revenue. In the event, the social services contribution was again merged into a single personal income tax in 1950. All cash payments are now made direct from general revenue[/color] No, you were wrong. despite the fact that you claimed the aged pension had a specific individual funding which it does not and never has you also missed the relevant sentence. I have helpfully underlined it for you. My point as underlined above, there were separate areas for specific payments, and then there were no links between them, because they had merged 'again' into the general revenue. Yes, all in the 1940's.

No, thats not what your link says. Are you a mongol?

What an arse  ::)

Ian, first up, I was not talking about when tax payments began in Australia as you mentioned first up. I was talking about how the tax had risen in the 1940's, as the government said it would be for a different need in a different separate area specifically for say, social security, pension, including widow pension etc. So with this reasoning, the tax rose well over 18%.

Here is a graph of the income tax rates rise in the 1940's.

http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo263/lolsnet/taxrates1945markedthebeginningofmodernsocialsecuritysystem.jpg

And this, marked the beginning of modern social security system.
So yes, I was correct, we have paid it in our taxes for our social security.

But don't worry, the rules always change, and now the Govt will raise the pension age to 70.
It's all about taking and not giving back.

IMO, if the age pension rises to 70, by then, a pensioner should receive more, as they have thus worked longer, and paid more taxes, to which they are priviledged for. They have paid for it via that big rise in tax since the 1940's for social security.

This was my whole disappointment, for my father in law back in the 1980's, when he needed to retire, and didn't want to leave his home which was on the farm, but with the assets test, of land after the 5 acres, he could not get the pension, even though he had paid his taxes all his life, he had earned it. Now, just recently, that has changed re: farming and larger properties, where the homestead on the acreage of more than 5 acres, will not become under the scrutiny of the assets test, provided one has lived on that property for 20 years or more.

There will always be loopholes for the government to get out of wanting to pay the pension, and thus, will want to raise the pension age for entitlements to 70  >:(

That graph above, shows the steep rise in tax rates, for the purpose of social security, but really, what one government implements back then, and what another does in this day and age, will not compliment each other.

1. I don't judge all gun owners by the actions of a few any more than I judge all Muslims by the actions of a few. I don't assume that all gun owners are going to shoot neighbours, go on a killing spree or massacre children at school, just as I don't assume that all Muslims are hijackers or suicide bombers. Equally, I have always maintained a position that while people should be free to enjoy any faith they like, organised religion and dictating what people should think shouldn't be allowed, in the same way that I think tighter gun controls in places like the US are necessary.

I don't think that we are encouraged to see all gun owners the same, but maybe I am missing the message. There's also a broader element to this, which is that in Australia we have freedom of religion, but a different approach to guns to places like the US, so naturally our mentality on the two issues is different. We have to protect the former, but we are culturally and socially inclined to have issues with the latter.

2. Welfare comes out of taxes as well and whilst they might be separate systems (thanks Lady LoLs for that information - it was interesting) many people who utilise the former do so temporarily after contributing taxes for a good proportion of their lives.

I think we do hear about the welfare system being a problem and a burden because there have been many proposed and actual alterations to the system and cuts, such as the Work for the Dole scheme and Abbott's doctor payment.

Sophia wrote on Apr 21^st, 2014 at 10:27am:

Ian, first up, I was not talking about when tax payments began in Australia as you mentioned first up. I was talking about how the tax had risen in the 1940's, as the government said it would be for a different need in a different separate area specifically for say, social security, pension, including widow pension etc. So with this reasoning, the tax rose well over 18%. Here is a graph of the income tax rates rise in the 1940's. http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo263/lolsnet/taxrates1945markedthebeginningofmodernsocialsecuritysystem.jpg And this, marked the beginning of modern social security system. So yes, I was correct, we have paid it in our taxes for our social security. But don't worry, the rules always change, and now the Govt will raise the pension age to 70. It's all about taking and not giving back. IMO, if the age pension rises to 70, by then, a pensioner should receive more, as they have thus worked longer, and paid more taxes, to which they are priviledged for. They have paid for it via that big rise in tax since the 1940's for social security. This was my whole disappointment, for my father in law back in the 1980's, when he needed to retire, and didn't want to leave his home which was on the farm, but with the assets test, of land after the 5 acres, he could not get the pension, even though he had paid his taxes all his life, he had earned it. Now, just recently, that has changed re: farming and larger properties, where the homestead on the acreage of more than 5 acres, will not become under the scrutiny of the assets test, provided one has lived on that property for 20 years or more. There will always be loopholes for the government to get out of wanting to pay the pension, and thus, will want to raise the pension age for entitlements to 70  >:( That graph above, shows the steep rise in tax rates, for the purpose of social security, but really, what one government implements back then, and what another does in this day and age, will not compliment each other.

All you had to do to in order to avoid looking ioncredibly stupid was a simple google and go to the ABS website. Instead, you demanded i do your research for you and when proven wrong proceeded to lie about what you previously claimed. now instead of just showing that you didnt know something you are looking incredibly foolish.


Quote:

The Commonwealth of Australia was formed on I January 1901 by federation of the six States under a written constitution which, among other things, authorised the new Commonwealth Parliament to legislate in respect of age and invalid pensions. In the event, the Commonwealth did not exercise this power until June 1908 when legislation providing for the introduction of means-tested 'flat-rate' age and invalid pensions was passed. The new pensions, which were financed from general revenue, came into operation in July 1909 and December 1910 respectively, superseding State age pension schemes which had been introduced in New South Wales (1900), Victoria (1900) and Queensland (1908) and an invalid pension scheme introduced in New South Wales (1908). The new pension was paid to men from age 65. It was paid to women at age 60, but not until December 1910. The age pension was also subject to a residence qualification of 25 years which was reduced to 20 years shortly after introduction. A residence qualification of five years applied to the invalid pension. In 1912 the Commonwealth introduced a maternity allowance. This allowance was a lump sum cash grant payable to a mother on the birth of a child.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/8e72c4526a94aaedca2569de00296978!OpenDocument

the old age pension has always been financed from general revenue. There is zero dispute about this.

Schu wrote on Apr 21^st, 2014 at 12:37pm:

1. I don't judge all gun owners by the actions of a few any more than I judge all Muslims by the actions of a few. I don't assume that all gun owners are going to shoot neighbours, go on a killing spree or massacre children at school, just as I don't assume that all Muslims are hijackers or suicide bombers. Equally, I have always maintained a position that while people should be free to enjoy any faith they like, organised religion and dictating what people should think shouldn't be allowed, in the same way that I think tighter gun controls in places like the US are necessary. I don't think that we are encouraged to see all gun owners the same, but maybe I am missing the message. There's also a broader element to this, which is that in Australia we have freedom of religion, but a different approach to guns to places like the US, so naturally our mentality on the two issues is different. We have to protect the former, but we are culturally and socially inclined to have issues with the latter.

The Greens accuse shooters of participating in blood sports despite the fact if target shooting is your genuine reason for owning a gun you are prohibited from hunting.
Of course even FD has suggested shooters have a VB in one hand with a gun in the other despite this being an offence that can get you 5 years, there is a zero blood alcohol limit for shooters.

After 1996 all gun owners were punished in Australia because of a mentally ill madman who did not have a gun licence and was given a disability pension over a decade earlier for mental illness.

Of course you would like to see all law abiding firearm owners punished in the USA just like Australia, you want to punish the law abiding firearm owners for the actions of criminals yet you claim this should happen in the USA to justify your bigotry.

Number of gun homicides USA in 2010- 11,078
Number of non fatal gun injuries from intentional assault- 53,738
Total number of gun problems in USA 2010- 64,816
Number of USA citizens who own a gun- 70-80 million people
(FBI stats)

65,000 divided by 70 million =0.00092857142 %
The problem gun owners in the USA are 0.00092857142 % of all gun owners, why should  99.99% of law abiding firearm owners in the USA be punished for the actions of criminals,can any anti gun bigots explain this?

Gnads wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture: 1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works. And here’s another one worth considering. 2.    Seems we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second group didn't.

What gives you the idea that people on welfare have never worked?

Where did that come from?

Swagman, perhaps?

Or the Boer?

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 21^st, 2014 at 1:24pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 21st, 2014 at 12:37pm: 1. I don't judge all gun owners by the actions of a few any more than I judge all Muslims by the actions of a few. I don't assume that all gun owners are going to shoot neighbours, go on a killing spree or massacre children at school, just as I don't assume that all Muslims are hijackers or suicide bombers. Equally, I have always maintained a position that while people should be free to enjoy any faith they like, organised religion and dictating what people should think shouldn't be allowed, in the same way that I think tighter gun controls in places like the US are necessary. I don't think that we are encouraged to see all gun owners the same, but maybe I am missing the message. There's also a broader element to this, which is that in Australia we have freedom of religion, but a different approach to guns to places like the US, so naturally our mentality on the two issues is different. We have to protect the former, but we are culturally and socially inclined to have issues with the latter. The Greens accuse shooters of participating in blood sports despite the fact if target shooting is your genuine reason for owning a gun you are prohibited from hunting. Of course even FD has suggested shooters have a VB in one hand with a gun in the other despite this being an offence that can get you 5 years, there is a zero blood alcohol limit for shooters. After 1996 all gun owners were punished in Australia because of a mentally ill madman who did not have a gun licence and was given a disability pension over a decade earlier for mental illness. Of course you would like to see all law abiding firearm owners punished in the USA just like Australia, you want to punish the law abiding firearm owners for the actions of criminals yet you claim this should happen in the USA to justify your bigotry. Number of gun homicides USA in 2010- 11,078 Number of non fatal gun injuries from intentional assault- 53,738 Total number of gun problems in USA 2010- 64,816 Number of USA citizens who own a gun- 70-80 million people (FBI stats) 65,000 divided by 70 million =0.00092857142 % The problem gun owners in the USA are 0.00092857142 % of all gun owners, why should  99.99% of law abiding firearm owners in the USA be punished for the actions of criminals,can any anti gun bigots explain this?

I'm not having any sort of discussion with you until you point out where I said this.

It's too dangerous to have firearms in a suburban house.
Sure - farmers need them & so do professional hunters.

30,000 Americans are killed every year by guns.

Most are killed from suicides & accidents.

Reeva Steenkamp's killing in South Africa is a perfect example
of the danger of having a firearm in the house.

Gnads wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture: 1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works.

2 questions:

How about we judge all Christians by the actions of Adolf Hitler or George Bush?

Are you opposed to restrictions on nuclear weapons and dynamite or is it just automatic machine guns that you want legalised?

True Colours wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 18th, 2014 at 7:25pm: These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture: 1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works. 2 questions: How about we judge all Christians by the actions of Adolf Hitler or George Bush? Are you opposed to restrictions on nuclear weapons and dynamite or is it just automatic machine guns that you want legalised?

Was Hitler a Christian???

:o

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 21^st, 2014 at 3:01pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 18th, 2014 at 7:25pm: These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture: 1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works. And here’s another one worth considering. 2.    Seems we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second group didn't. What gives you the idea that people on welfare have never worked? Where did that come from? Swagman, perhaps? Or the Boer?

Well, considering everyone but the boer is human garbage  :o ....

True Colours wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 18th, 2014 at 7:25pm: These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture: 1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works. 2 questions: How about we judge all Christians by the actions of Adolf Hitler or George Bush? Are you opposed to restrictions on nuclear weapons and dynamite or is it just automatic machine guns that you want legalised?

Que? What has that to do with being able to own a gun/rifle?.... & if it's a semi auto .. so what?

Nukes or machine guns weren't mentioned.

On Guns:
Americans, ya gotta wonder!
Lets look at it rationaly.
Most common claim about the need for the right to own guns:-

>Home protection, armed burglars etc

And what are the realistic odds of that happening to any given home? I don't claim to know the actual figure but it would have to range in the millions to one against. And for that miniscule threat they hold virtual armouries at the ready. Being a burglar must be just about the most high-risk job in America, and what does it say about the American School system that despite that they still DO have burglars?

Next
>The Government

But who is this lugubrious "Government" they all live in fear of?   THEMSELVES!   It's made up of American citizens. And the mysterious "Dark Arms of Government"? More American citizens, with homes and families and mortgages, and guns too no doubt.
THat approach therefore seems akin to that moment in Blazing Saddles when Cleavon Little holds a gun to his own chin and yells.."Nobody move or the N(bad word) gets it"!
  The Armed Forces, Police etc? Yet MORE American citizens with all the above.
  So, looking at it rationally, the Americans fear.....themselves, not any external power, not any Mystic Creature, they need the guns to protect themselves from themselves.
Most Gov workers would appear to be sane normal middle-class family people, yet THEY are such a huge threat to life and freedom that it needs an armed populace to counter?
That argument always reminds me of the one about the salesman who offers a customer a lucky charm and claims it's guaranteed to keep elephants completely away. "But, there are no elephants in America" says the customer. "Yeah," says the salesman, "see how well it works?"

Now, is that a National Paranoid Psychosis or WHAT??!!

On migrants:
  In the past the immigrant has not been well received as a rule, and immigrant youth gangs and accusations of crime were commonplace. This appeared to be largely a self-defense reaction to the perceived discrimination. With time however they settled in and their younger children and then grandchildren gradually became Dinky-Di and were accepted. This is even true of the Viets in the 70's.
Now we have the Africans and the Muslims.
The Africans scare people because they look so different and they suffer from the mental/emotional associations made in our minds by American movies. Hollywood has a lot to answer for. By and large though they are decent people and will settle in here given time.
The Muslims are a different case altogether. Although many of them are simply decent people seeking a better life their religious and cultural ways and ties mitigate against them. They appear to make little or no effort to fit in anywhere, and are paranoid and defensive from the start. Theirs is an aggressive culture and religion when threatened, and they are threatened here, by us. This is undeniable, and almost traditional, but it creates problems for us all, and appears to be recreating the massive problems seen overseas. I can't offer a magic solution unfortunately, and no-one else seems to have one either. That being said however, it seems to me that the most hope for a solution must lay within the Islamic community themselves, for one can never be successfully imposed from without. Given the world-wide nature of the problems it's going to be a long hard road to achieve any peaceful answer, even in Oz. Our prejudice, however justified it may appear, means that the Muslim community is facing greater hurdles than any other immigrants before them. Many of those hurdles are of their own making though, so the onus ultimately rests with them, in my opinion. That doesn't excuse US from trying to be understanding and trying to help them though, we will all pay a high price if that effort fails.