http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fC6RP6tZ1Q

Go team Australia...

Its time wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2014 at 9:32pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fC6RP6tZ1Q Go team Australia...

Yes. Please.

Just... go!

If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities. 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 1:12am:

If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.

Yep and many kids these days think the world owes them. They don't take responsibility for their own actions and expect others to do things for them. All part of Labor and the Unions' "gimme, gimme" culture.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 3:41am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  Yep and many kids these days think the world owes them. They don't take responsibility for their own actions and expect others to do things for them. All part of Labor and the Unions' "gimme, gimme" culture.

The only people not taking responsibility for their own actions is the Abbott government and their supporters blaming the previous labor government for everything that Abbott has got wrong

How about the government take responsibility.

The under 30's didn't sell their jobs to foreign entities.

That 'living with the parents' statement doesn't make sense. There's few job vacancies in regional or country Australia. Young people must move to the cities if they want any hope of finding work. What would you have them do? Sit at home out in the sticks forever?

unemployment can happen to anyone at any time.  Those that are working today, could be the ones that are unemployed tomorrow.  Why should our young people, have to wait to get the dole?.      >:(      

John S wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 6:06am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 3:41am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  Yep and many kids these days think the world owes them. They don't take responsibility for their own actions and expect others to do things for them. All part of Labor and the Unions' "gimme, gimme" culture. The only people not taking responsibility for their own actions is the Abbott government and their supporters blaming the previous labor government for everything that Abbott has got wrong

To be fair, Labor is even blocking savings measures they had intended to introduce if they won office. Yeah, you got nothing.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 6:54am:

unemployment can happen to anyone at any time.  Those that are working today, could be the ones that are unemployed tomorrow.  Why should our young people, have to wait to get the dole?.      >:(

Perhaps it might provide them with an incentive to find a job quick-smart? Perhaps it might teach them to value the importance of keeping their job, rather than thinking, "oh well, I can just get the dole if I don't like this job". Ever think about that, instead of thinking its their God-given right to bludge off hard-working taxpayers like me (not that you'd know about being a hard-working taxpayer)?

Thank heavens for the good people in the senate.      :)    

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 7:59am:

Thank heavens for the good people in the senate.      :)

Yes, someone has to stand against the lunatics from the Greens and that halfwit from the car party. :)

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 1:12am:

If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.

These 'progressives' you cite are in fact those governments themselves who accepted that there is a social benefit and a social responsibility involved in ensuring that those who cannot profit from the 'prosperity' (LMAO) of the country should receive a minimum sustenance allowance.

The social benefits are too numerous to outline over and over again .

How this can be perverted into some kind of neologistic 'progressive' ideology thinking is beyond me.

Back to school.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 7:56am:

wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 6:54am: unemployment can happen to anyone at any time.  Those that are working today, could be the ones that are unemployed tomorrow.  Why should our young people, have to wait to get the dole?.      >:(       Perhaps it might provide them with an incentive to find a job quick-smart? Perhaps it might teach them to value the importance of keeping their job, rather than thinking, "oh well, I can just get the dole if I don't like this job". Ever think about that, instead of thinking its their God-given right to bludge off hard-working taxpayers like me (not that you'd know about being a hard-working taxpayer)?

Good - I'll put you down for how many jobs right now?

The books are open..... just send in your form or simply call our hotline and we'll put your name and number of job vacancies up there for all to see.. think of the kudos.....

No - I'm expecting to be a 70 year old who is 'surplus to requirements' and who will be turned out to live under the bridge....

I'm currently re-reading 'Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee' - a book that contains many parallels for the current rape of the West.  Like most of the Plains and Rockies Indians, we had no truck with the global economy and it often blatant abuse of people for grabbing our gold and land, we had no argument with it and often operated in peace with them, allowing them their own free passage over our land..... now they are moving us onto reservations of poverty, lack of opportunity, and hopelessness for no reason other than that we stand in their way (see Android** Hicks and his rabid views - truly an Android there).  Very similar.

I recall that shale oil was deemed uneconomical to get out - same with this fracked rubbish... now these are becoming the mainstays of economic drivers..... and we pay for it even if it is taken from our land... like the Indians we have no choice but to give up our land and its wealth and then we receive back what pitiful rations this new government will allow us.

In my studies of terrorism etc and regional issues - it became plain that such concepts as the Asian-Pacific Region was not, in fact, a discrete physical entity, but was, rather, an amorphous and boundary-less essential state-in-being via trade and cross-cultural connections etc.  This is the same as the Islamic State, and in the same ways, poses the same threats to national sovereignty and the well-being of the people of nations.  One primary reason the Islamic State is opposed by many Muslim nations is the simple fact that it adheres to no national boundaries and borders - the same applies to trading regions, and by extension, to the 'global economy'.

Thus a 'global economy' unconstrained by any government and answerable only to itself is as much a danger to stability and security in the West as is the Islamic State to Islamic countries.  The differences are that the GE does not impose by physical force, intimidation and violence (you may argue that at leisure), and we do not oppose it in the same way as states oppose Islamic State.

** "I.. don't how anyone overlooked this!  There was an android malfunction......"

"I prefer the term 'artificial person'."

"OK.. there was an.. artificial person malfunction on Ripley's last trip out, and.. some deaths were involved."

"That's putting it mildly!"

"I'm shocked!  Was it a Cyberdyne Systems Series 101?  The 101's always were a little twitchy!"

"I don't give  a damn, Bishop!  Just stay away from me!"

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 8:29am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 7:56am: wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 6:54am: unemployment can happen to anyone at any time.  Those that are working today, could be the ones that are unemployed tomorrow.  Why should our young people, have to wait to get the dole?.      >:(       Perhaps it might provide them with an incentive to find a job quick-smart? Perhaps it might teach them to value the importance of keeping their job, rather than thinking, "oh well, I can just get the dole if I don't like this job". Ever think about that, instead of thinking its their God-given right to bludge off hard-working taxpayers like me (not that you'd know about being a hard-working taxpayer)? Good - I'll put you down for how many jobs right now? The books are open..... just send in your form or simply call our hotline and we'll put your name and number of job vacancies up there for all to see.. think of the kudos.....

Already got a job, thanks. Two, in fact - one is full time and the other is pizzing you off. The second one I do for kicks.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 9:21am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 8:29am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 7:56am: wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 6:54am: unemployment can happen to anyone at any time.  Those that are working today, could be the ones that are unemployed tomorrow.  Why should our young people, have to wait to get the dole?.      >:(       Perhaps it might provide them with an incentive to find a job quick-smart? Perhaps it might teach them to value the importance of keeping their job, rather than thinking, "oh well, I can just get the dole if I don't like this job". Ever think about that, instead of thinking its their God-given right to bludge off hard-working taxpayers like me (not that you'd know about being a hard-working taxpayer)? Good - I'll put you down for how many jobs right now? The books are open..... just send in your form or simply call our hotline and we'll put your name and number of job vacancies up there for all to see.. think of the kudos..... Already got a job, thanks. Two, in fact - one is full time and the other is pizzing you off. The second one I do for kicks.

What an interesting "life" you lead.

Armpit’s second job is providing us lefties with amusement as we kick him around and tear his posts to shreds.

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 9:50am:

Armpit’s second job is providing us lefties with amusement as we kick him around and tear his posts to shreds.

I doubt very much that he has any job.

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 9:50am:

Armpit’s second job is providing us lefties with amusement as we kick him around and tear his posts to shreds.

He's the salmon that jumps on the hook for you  :)

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 1:12am:

If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.

You are assuming that everyone under the age of 30 still has parents.   >:(

Bam wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 10:58am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  You are assuming that everyone under the age of 30 still has parents.   >:(

Yes, I spotted that straight away.

Misty makes an awful lot of assumptions.

Or parents wealthy enough to look after their young unemployed adult, any spouse and kids, mortgage etc.

This foul measure while 1-2000 suoper rich Australians rip $40Bn out of the Budget.

This is an evil govt.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 7:54am:

John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 6:06am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 3:41am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  Yep and many kids these days think the world owes them. They don't take responsibility for their own actions and expect others to do things for them. All part of Labor and the Unions' "gimme, gimme" culture. The only people not taking responsibility for their own actions is the Abbott government and their supporters blaming the previous labor government for everything that Abbott has got wrong To be fair, Labor is even blocking savings measures they had intended to introduce if they won office. Yeah, you got nothing.

Go and find out why the labor party blocking savings that they would of brought in if they were in government then come back and tell everyone why they are being blocked

Don't listen to Murdoch and his B/S or Abbott and his spin go and find the truth yourself.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 9:51am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 9:50am: Armpit’s second job is providing us lefties with amusement as we kick him around and tear his posts to shreds. I doubt very much that he has any job.

If he has 2 jobs why is he on here 24/7

The issue was how many jobs are you OFFERING - but you tried desperately to avoid that....  :D

As for 'p ::)issing me off' - you hardly touch the sides... such nonsensical comments are worthy only of the trash can...

Its time wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2014 at 9:32pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fC6RP6tZ1Q Go team Australia...

Great video .... brings tears to me eyes .

I've always found through experience that the more people have, the less inclined to give they are.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 1:12am:

If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.

so if the parents are drug buggered arseholes, we'll punish their offspring? 

you had better hope that no one ever punishes yopur kids for your deeds, both real and perceived

John Smith wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 1:10pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 2nd, 2014 at 9:32pm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fC6RP6tZ1Q Go team Australia... Great video .... brings tears to me eyes . I've always found through experience that the more people have, the less inclined to give they are.

"Bring a tear to a glass eye, that would."

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 11:04am:

Bam wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 10:58am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  You are assuming that everyone under the age of 30 still has parents.   >:( Yes, I spotted that straight away. Misty makes an awful lot of assumptions.

And they're mostly awfully wrong...

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 11:04am:

Or parents wealthy enough to look after their young unemployed adult, any spouse and kids, mortgage etc. This foul measure while 1-2000 suoper rich Australians rip $40Bn out of the Budget. This is an evil govt.

Evil doesn't even begin to cover it...  >:( >:(

Kat wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 2:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 11:04am: Bam wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 10:58am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  You are assuming that everyone under the age of 30 still has parents.   >:( Yes, I spotted that straight away. Misty makes an awful lot of assumptions. And they're mostly awfully wrong...

Invariably.

He works at a university, you know.

Which faculty's toilets does he clean?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 6:46am:

How about the government take responsibility. The under 30's didn't sell their jobs to foreign entities. That 'living with the parents' statement doesn't make sense. There's few job vacancies in regional or country Australia. Young people must move to the cities if they want any hope of finding work. What would you have them do? Sit at home out in the sticks forever?

Not always, plenty of work for hard workers in many rural communities, its why they often get 457 visa workers approved because the locals move to the big smoke

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

Which faculty's toilets does he clean?

Women's Studies.


http://holykaw.alltop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/40980939-media_httpmsnbcmedia4_EAEnG.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 2:45pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 2:41pm: Which faculty's toilets does he clean? Women's Studies. http://holykaw.alltop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/40980939-media_httpmsnbcmedia4_EAEnG.jpg

misty usually owns you when you bring out the janitor pic.  it only reveals you to be a terrible snob gweg.
and "the cleaner" has become a bit of a cult hero in racing circles.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 2:48pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 2:45pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 2:41pm: Which faculty's toilets does he clean? Women's Studies. http://holykaw.alltop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/40980939-media_httpmsnbcmedia4_EAEnG.jpg misty usually owns you when you bring out the janitor pic.  it only reveals you to be a terrible snob gweg. and "the cleaner" has become a bit of a cult hero in racing circles.

Are you suggesting that there's something wrong with being a cleaner?

I hope you aren't.

Indeed a moving video clip.

Quite telling that many who respond either did not watch the clip, did not grasp the clip or a devoid of basic human empathy.

The underlying point of the clip should stand out to even the most thick skinned conservative thinker I would have thought, at least prior to seeing this thread.

Always been the way I suppose, those with the least are invariably and consistently the most generous toward others. Those with the most, conversely are not.

The old saying poo floats to the surface is true on so many levels.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 3:00pm:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 2:48pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 2:45pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 2:41pm: Which faculty's toilets does he clean? Women's Studies. http://holykaw.alltop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/40980939-media_httpmsnbcmedia4_EAEnG.jpg misty usually owns you when you bring out the janitor pic.  it only reveals you to be a terrible snob gweg. and "the cleaner" has become a bit of a cult hero in racing circles. Are you suggesting that there's something wrong with being a cleaner? I hope you aren't.

Are YOU saying there's something wrong with being a cleaner.
When you want to "put someone down" YOU accuse them of being a cleaner.
So ,YOU are saying it gweg

..only if he's a cleaner in Women's Studies......... not that there's anything wrong with THAT....

aquascoot wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 5:38pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 3:00pm: aquascoot wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 2:48pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 2:45pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 2:41pm: Which faculty's toilets does he clean? Women's Studies. http://holykaw.alltop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/40980939-media_httpmsnbcmedia4_EAEnG.jpg misty usually owns you when you bring out the janitor pic.  it only reveals you to be a terrible snob gweg. and "the cleaner" has become a bit of a cult hero in racing circles. Are you suggesting that there's something wrong with being a cleaner? I hope you aren't. Are YOU saying there's something wrong with being a cleaner. When you want to "put someone down" YOU accuse them of being a cleaner. So ,YOU are saying it gweg

No, I'm not saying that there's something wrong with being a cleaner.  Quite the contrary.

I think you need to scroll back through the thread and see for yourself.

Greg: "He works at a university, you know."

Team Knight: "Which faculty's toilets does he clean?"

Greg: "Women's Studies" (photo included of the famous university janitor who graduated from the campus he cleans).

Now, where has anyone in that conversation said anything negative about cleaners?

Take your time, and be honest.

Whatever you're selling Greg, I'm not buying

aquascoot wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 8:17pm:

Whatever you're selling Greg, I'm not buying

White flag accepted.

Next time, read through the thread before you make silly accusations.

forgiven

What's the bet that those dogs that won't share their pizza are liberal voters :(

Always tell a liberal voter from a mile away. Short arms and long pockets :(

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 6:46am:

How about the government take responsibility.

Where does parental responsibility start and end for you?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 8:26am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  These 'progressives' you cite are in fact those governments themselves who accepted that there is a social benefit and a social responsibility involved in ensuring that those who cannot profit from the 'prosperity' (LMAO) of the country should receive a minimum sustenance allowance. The social benefits are too numerous to outline over and over again . How this can be perverted into some kind of neologistic 'progressive' ideology thinking is beyond me. Back to school.

So parental responsibility ends when their son/daughter is 18? Why can't the parents be responsible for their homeless under 30 son/daughter?

Anyway, the other option to receive a tax payer handout was to study. Surely studying will help their future than being homeless.

Bam wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 10:58am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  You are assuming that everyone under the age of 30 still has parents.   >:(

Exceptions should be made for those without parents. However, the percentage being parent-less would be minuscule and it therefore doesn't effect my original point. 

John Smith wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 1:12pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  so if the parents are drug buggered arseholes, we'll punish their offspring?

Again, the percentage of parents being drug-f*cked would be minuscule and therefore doesn't effect my original point. Anyway, the child would have, or should have, been taken away from their parents if they are drugged losers.


Quote:

you had better hope that no one ever punishes yopur kids for your deeds, both real and perceived

I, as well as my wife, have gained skills in areas that assure our family does not have such a future. See, this is called thinking and planning ahead. "Progressives" should try it sometime, instead of expecting everything to fall into place for them while they do sweet f.a. about it. 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 5:22am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  so if the parents are drug buggered arseholes, we'll punish their offspring?  Again, the percentage of parents being drug-f*cked would be minuscule and therefore doesn't effect my original point. Anyway, the child would have, or should have, been taken away from their parents if they are drugged losers. Quote: you had better hope that no one ever punishes yopur kids for your deeds, both real and perceived I, as well as my wife, have gained skills in areas that assure our family does not have such a future. See, this is called thinking and planning ahead. "Progressives" should try it sometime, instead of expecting everything to fall into place for them while they do sweet f.a. about it.

Id really ;like to respond to your argument here but unfortunately the internet does not allow me to punch you in the mouth for being a smug arsehole.

ian wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 5:27am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 4th, 2014 at 5:22am: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  so if the parents are drug buggered arseholes, we'll punish their offspring?  Again, the percentage of parents being drug-f*cked would be minuscule and therefore doesn't effect my original point. Anyway, the child would have, or should have, been taken away from their parents if they are drugged losers. Quote: you had better hope that no one ever punishes yopur kids for your deeds, both real and perceived I, as well as my wife, have gained skills in areas that assure our family does not have such a future. See, this is called thinking and planning ahead. "Progressives" should try it sometime, instead of expecting everything to fall into place for them while they do sweet f.a. about it.  Id really ;like to respond to your argument here but unfortunately the internet does not allow me to punch you in the mouth for being a smug arsehole.

Let me guess, you're another loser that stuffed their life up and want the government and tax payer to fix it for you? Sure sounds like it.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 5:33am:

ian wrote on Nov 4th, 2014 at 5:27am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 4th, 2014 at 5:22am: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  so if the parents are drug buggered arseholes, we'll punish their offspring?  Again, the percentage of parents being drug-f*cked would be minuscule and therefore doesn't effect my original point. Anyway, the child would have, or should have, been taken away from their parents if they are drugged losers. Quote: you had better hope that no one ever punishes yopur kids for your deeds, both real and perceived I, as well as my wife, have gained skills in areas that assure our family does not have such a future. See, this is called thinking and planning ahead. "Progressives" should try it sometime, instead of expecting everything to fall into place for them while they do sweet f.a. about it.  Id really ;like to respond to your argument here but unfortunately the internet does not allow me to punch you in the mouth for being a smug arsehole. Let me guess, you're another loser that stuffed their life up and want the government and tax payer to fix it for you? Sure sounds like it.

I have plenty of money now but I have known extreme poverty and being wealthy doesnt mean that I automatically look down on the less fortunate, there but for the grace of God go I. You should remember that., Some people arent born to the priveleged start in life that you had, thats something else you should remember. 

Amazing assumptions and generalisations there, Culture - you need to get out more.

Many of us developed skills etc - it's no guarantee that the fools who run the who won't ruin things for you and cause you to be tossed on the scrapheap at fifty, then whine about what it costs their 'budget'.

When governments deliberately introduce and pursue policies that cause unemployment, they are responsible.  Let them eat that cake since that age of entitlement for them is over.

Grapples, I think the smart people don't focus too much on the government , in terms of their own success in life and it seems a failing to do so.

certainly there are just SOOOO many success stories amongst our Asian immigrants.

they focus on frugality, hard work, involving the government as little as possible (paying cash to their family to work in their enterprises ;))
they focus on family, solidarity, looking out for one another, putting their kids in the best private schools money can buy and always running small businesses (why work for someone and make them rich).

these groups come from very disadvantaged backgrounds but are always upwardly socially mobile

so , forget the government and what it cant or wont be able to do for you and concentrate on

Family
Frugality
Education
Hard work
Perseverence
Loyalty
Cheerfulness
Common sense
Resilience.

wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 6:54am:

unemployment can happen to anyone at any time.  Those that are working today, could be the ones that are unemployed tomorrow.  Why should our young people, have to wait to get the dole?.      >:(

Hear hear Sir Crook,

Tony Abbott wants more homeless people.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 5:22am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  so if the parents are drug buggered arseholes, we'll punish their offspring?  Again, the percentage of parents being drug-f*cked would be minuscule and therefore doesn't effect my original point. Anyway, the child would have, or should have, been taken away from their parents if they are drugged losers. Quote: you had better hope that no one ever punishes yopur kids for your deeds, both real and perceived I, as well as my wife, have gained skills in areas that assure our family does not have such a future. See, this is called thinking and planning ahead. "Progressives" should try it sometime, instead of expecting everything to fall into place for them while they do sweet f.a. about it.

what a load of condescending bullsheat ..... no parent is responsible for their kids at 30. If the kids go out clubbing at the age of 25, screw around and ends up getting some girl pregnant, does that mean the parents are responsible?

You must live in lala land. You have obviously never dealt with reality.

I bet you are one of those uni lecturers that moved from a life of study supplied to you by your parent, to a life of acedemia, without having really lived outside of the confines of university life. You may know your subject matter, but you have a twisted concept of reality.

Some parents may not have the room or the money to support a young unemployed adult child who may have a wife and kiddies and a mortgage.

If this policy got implemented there will be a sudden huge drop in spending as people are frightened they or their child may find themselves unemployed with zero money coming in. That in itself will create more unemployment.

A much better policy—boost NewStart by at least $50 a week, $100 even better.

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 8:25am:

A much better policy—boost NewStart by at least $50 a week, $100 even better.

Either that or supply jobs for all that want them.

Boosting NewStart will boost private sector spending and that will create jobs.

Well said Dame Pansi. Newstart ( No start ) is far too low, and should be increased by at the very least $50 a week.     ;)

wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 8:44am:

Well said Dame Pansi. Newstart ( No start ) is far too low, and should be increased by at the very least $50 a week.     ;)

The dole should be  $450 a week with only 1 question -


are you unemployed?

The Abbott Government follows the Dennis Denuto guide to government policy: just assert there is an age of entitlement or the welfare systems is being rorted. Don't worry too much about there being a paucity of evidence regarding the age of entitlement or that the welfare system is being rorted - the vibe will do.

One of the "more vibe than reality" policies has been that the youth need to be earning or learning. It's one of the policies that sounds great - surely the opposite of earning or learning is nothing, and something is always better than nothing.

Abbott will be thus happy to know that that is exactly what the youth of Australia have been doing - and indeed are now doing in record numbers. More Australian youth are now in full-time education than ever before (this includes those who are working while also attending full-time education). The trend has been long and steady for nearly 25 years.

When it comes to either earning or learning the 15-19-year-olds are doing that in record numbers. In May about 92 per cent of youth aged 15 to 19 years of age were either working or learning. This includes about 44 per cent who were employed, 5.7 per cent who were unemployed but doing full-time education and 42 per cent who were not in the labour force but were attending full-time education.

It's worth noting the ABS records full-time and part-time employment, but only full-time education.

Now lets move on to the Dole. The current rate for Newstart is $510.50 a fortnight - $13,273 a year. Given anyone earning less than $19,700 after tax is in the bottom 10 per cent of Australian households, those on Newstart are among the poorest of all Australians.

You would have to be either extremely deluded, or a member of the Cabinet to think people are choosing to stay on such an income.

Unless you have parents or the like supporting you being on the dole is crap. It is not how the government portrays it. Bands of youth laughing in the taxpayers face as they soak up the sun in Bondi. It actually sucks.

Now unemployed will have to waste 25 hours a week doing menial tasks that provide them with little help searching for or getting that all-important job. Which seems at odds with Assistant Employment Minister Luke Hartsuyker comment that


Quote:

It's most important that jobseekers look for work. There are training options available under this job service model but a jobseeker's primary responsibility is searching for that all-important job.

How do they get that all-important job?

The way to improve a person's chance of getting a job is to assist them to be one of the "suitable applicants".

But such training gets in the way of finding that all- important job.

So why don these bludgers get a god damn Job?

In May there were 146,000 job vacancies with 720,000 people unemployed. Another 920,000 were underemployed and wanting more hours of work. Underemployment is a very important labour market indicator as, under the terms of internationally agreed labour statistics collection, an individual is counted as employed if working one hour a week for pay or profit.

This is the core reality of the Australian job market.

Lets not forget that the government wants those under 30 to wait up to six months before they get any money at all. So you better hope there is someone willing to put you up and feed you for that time.

Australia has always had a proud history of targeting the poor and disadvantaged.

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 8:25am:

Some parents may not have the room or the money to support a young unemployed adult child who may have a wife and kiddies and a mortgage. If this policy got implemented there will be a sudden huge drop in spending as people are frightened they or their child may find themselves unemployed with zero money coming in. That in itself will create more unemployment. A much better policy—boost NewStart by at least $50 a week, $100 even better.

$50 would have been (just) adequate when the increase was first mooted under Howard TEN YEARS AGO.

It now needs to be a minimum of $100 a week. NO less.

And there should be NO hoops to jump through to get it.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 8:36am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 4th, 2014 at 8:25am: A much better policy—boost NewStart by at least $50 a week, $100 even better. Either that or supply jobs for all that want them.

These jobs need not be the best jobs, of course, but even $650 a week removing graffiti is better than $260 a week and being lied to.

It only takes about $10 billion to $15 billion to create enough jobs for those that need them, or at least to offer jobs to households that currently have none. And it's far better than the Work for the Dole rubbish that is either pointless rock painting, or corrupt deals for private companies that ends up being work for well below the minimum wage.

Kat wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 4th, 2014 at 8:25am: Some parents may not have the room or the money to support a young unemployed adult child who may have a wife and kiddies and a mortgage. If this policy got implemented there will be a sudden huge drop in spending as people are frightened they or their child may find themselves unemployed with zero money coming in. That in itself will create more unemployment. A much better policy—boost NewStart by at least $50 a week, $100 even better. $50 would have been (just) adequate when the increase was first mooted under Howard TEN YEARS AGO. It now needs to be a minimum of $100 a week. NO less. And there should be NO hoops to jump through to get it.

I think $50 a week but double the rent assistance ceiling and extend rent assistance to include people with mortgages.

Bam wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 8:05pm:

I think $50 a week but double the rent assistance ceiling and extend rent assistance to include people with mortgages.

Kat wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 3:25pm:

It now needs to be a minimum of $100 a week. NO less. And there should be NO hoops to jump through to get it.

Raven wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 12:14pm:

The Abbott Government follows the Dennis Denuto guide to government policy: just assert there is an age of entitlement or the welfare systems is being rorted. Don't worry too much about there being a paucity of evidence regarding the age of entitlement or that the welfare system is being rorted - the vibe will do.

Why not email your local MP? Mr Abbott'll be bound to change his policy with all of you guiding him.

ian wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 6:00am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 4th, 2014 at 5:33am: ian wrote on Nov 4th, 2014 at 5:27am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 4th, 2014 at 5:22am: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  so if the parents are drug buggered arseholes, we'll punish their offspring?  Again, the percentage of parents being drug-f*cked would be minuscule and therefore doesn't effect my original point. Anyway, the child would have, or should have, been taken away from their parents if they are drugged losers. Quote: you had better hope that no one ever punishes yopur kids for your deeds, both real and perceived I, as well as my wife, have gained skills in areas that assure our family does not have such a future. See, this is called thinking and planning ahead. "Progressives" should try it sometime, instead of expecting everything to fall into place for them while they do sweet f.a. about it.  Id really ;like to respond to your argument here but unfortunately the internet does not allow me to punch you in the mouth for being a smug arsehole. Let me guess, you're another loser that stuffed their life up and want the government and tax payer to fix it for you? Sure sounds like it. I have plenty of money now but I have known extreme poverty and being wealthy doesnt mean that I automatically look down on the less fortunate, there but for the grace of God go I. You should remember that., Some people arent born to the priveleged start in life that you had, thats something else you should remember.

Where have I mentioned I was "privileged"? I lived from ages 17 to 34 week by week, rarely saving a cent. At one point I lived off about $250 a week for 3 and a half years. Anyway, I am not interested in anyone's pity or sympathy. I want to know why the government is solely responsible for the homeless under 30. Where is the parental responsibility?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 7:10am:

Amazing assumptions and generalisations there, Culture - you need to get out more. Many of us developed skills etc - it's no guarantee that the fools who run the who won't ruin things for you and cause you to be tossed on the scrapheap at fifty, then whine about what it costs their 'budget'. When governments deliberately introduce and pursue policies that cause unemployment, they are responsible.  Let them eat that cake since that age of entitlement for them is over.

Yawn. No government or business in the world can destroy one area I have skills in (not in the next 500 or more years anyway). There's a never-ending marketplace for it.

John Smith wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 7:42am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 4th, 2014 at 5:22am: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  so if the parents are drug buggered arseholes, we'll punish their offspring?  Again, the percentage of parents being drug-f*cked would be minuscule and therefore doesn't effect my original point. Anyway, the child would have, or should have, been taken away from their parents if they are drugged losers. Quote: you had better hope that no one ever punishes yopur kids for your deeds, both real and perceived I, as well as my wife, have gained skills in areas that assure our family does not have such a future. See, this is called thinking and planning ahead. "Progressives" should try it sometime, instead of expecting everything to fall into place for them while they do sweet f.a. about it.  what a load of condescending bullsheat ..... no parent is responsible for their kids at 30. If the kids go out clubbing at the age of 25, screw around and ends up getting some girl pregnant, does that mean the parents are responsible? You must live in lala land. You have obviously never dealt with reality. I bet you are one of those uni lecturers that moved from a life of study supplied to you by your parent, to a life of acedemia, without having really lived outside of the confines of university life. You may know your subject matter, but you have a twisted concept of reality.

Stupid example. We are not talking about people getting pissed and pregnant.

If your son/daughter is under 30 and homeless, then any decent parent would take them back in. In fact, what parent says "f*ck our son, he should live on the street"? Only sh*t parents or a son/daughter that was a complete arsehole to their parents would do such a thing.

In non-Western countries it is normal for people in their 20s to live at home. In fact, they often live at home until they are married. Only in countries where the state has eroded family life is parental responsibility waning. Non-Western countries are still very family centred. Western countries, while still family centred to an extent, have shifted a great deal of responsibilities onto state machinery. This thread is a great example of this shift being encouraged.

You are crapping on like all under 30s are unmarried and childless and all parents can support an adult child for 6 months of every year.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 5^th, 2014 at 5:21am:

John Smith wrote on Nov 4th, 2014 at 7:42am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 4th, 2014 at 5:22am: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  so if the parents are drug buggered arseholes, we'll punish their offspring?  Again, the percentage of parents being drug-f*cked would be minuscule and therefore doesn't effect my original point. Anyway, the child would have, or should have, been taken away from their parents if they are drugged losers. Quote: you had better hope that no one ever punishes yopur kids for your deeds, both real and perceived I, as well as my wife, have gained skills in areas that assure our family does not have such a future. See, this is called thinking and planning ahead. "Progressives" should try it sometime, instead of expecting everything to fall into place for them while they do sweet f.a. about it.  what a load of condescending bullsheat ..... no parent is responsible for their kids at 30. If the kids go out clubbing at the age of 25, screw around and ends up getting some girl pregnant, does that mean the parents are responsible? You must live in lala land. You have obviously never dealt with reality. I bet you are one of those uni lecturers that moved from a life of study supplied to you by your parent, to a life of acedemia, without having really lived outside of the confines of university life. You may know your subject matter, but you have a twisted concept of reality. Stupid example. We are not talking about people getting pissed and pregnant. .

you made a blanket statement and so far your answer to everything has been 'we're not talking about those ones' or 'we're not talking about those without parents,' or 'we're not talking about those whose parents are druggos' ...

the only stupid thing was your blanket statement.

No one has addressed the original point. Why is it solely the government's responsibility for the under 30s homeless? Have we become so "progressive" that asking parents to look after their children is now a radical idea?


In fact, if it's the state's responsibility, then why have parents at all? Why not take babies from their parents straight after birth and put them all into a state funded nursery? Anyone who claims the state shouldn't do this is admitting parents do have responsibilities toward their children.

Told you already - government in many ways has taken over  that mantle of caring for all.. even by reducing the rights of parents to control their children.... and therefore inherits the earth - the earth, mud and slush of having to support those children they have told their parents they have no real rights in or over and who are, according to government fiat, free to do as they choose.

You make the policies and you enforce them to the detriment of others - you take full responsibility and pay the piper.

That is ONE grievous fault of 'social engineering' and the excessive input of socio-fascist idealism.

I've told you many times to beware of freaks bearing grift.. you never listen...

I've also told you many times that by allowing government to take this mantle from us all - we are becoming serfs to its dictatorship - nowhere more revealed than in the attitudes of the current 'government'.

Will your 'skills' do you well when we have the equivalent of the Red Guards and the Cultural Revolution - when those such as you were vilified, imprisoned, attacked and re-educated to the new regime and according to the will of the young people blatantly deprived of their rights and their freedoms and the ability to build a secure life and family structure etc, for themselves??

I fear, Grasshopper, that like so many others - you have yet to understand life.... any such understand life only when it crashes in on them...... in the hands of the very ones they have vilified in the past.....

Somebody in their 20s is not a child!

They would get 6 months dole in every 12 months!

The stupid idea would cause a drop in private sector spending directly (less money to spend) and indirectly (under 30s currently employed would save money—under the mattress most likely—if they feel they could be made unemployed and with only 6 months inadequate dole every 12 months.

Whatever studies you are supposed to have done clearly does not include economics or common sense.

How old was Julia when she was young and nieve and practising law? 

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 5^th, 2014 at 10:36pm:

Told you already - government in many ways has taken over  that mantle of caring for all.. even by reducing the rights of parents to control their children.... and therefore inherits the earth - the earth, mud and slush of having to support those children they have told their parents they have no real rights in or over and who are, according to government fiat, free to do as they choose. You make the policies and you enforce them to the detriment of others - you take full responsibility and pay the piper. That is ONE grievous fault of 'social engineering' and the excessive input of socio-fascist idealism. I've told you many times to beware of freaks bearing grift.. you never listen... I've also told you many times that by allowing government to take this mantle from us all - we are becoming serfs to its dictatorship - nowhere more revealed than in the attitudes of the current 'government'. Will your 'skills' do you well when we have the equivalent of the Red Guards and the Cultural Revolution - when those such as you were vilified, imprisoned, attacked and re-educated to the new regime and according to the will of the young people blatantly deprived of their rights and their freedoms and the ability to build a secure life and family structure etc, for themselves?? I fear, Grasshopper, that like so many others - you have yet to understand life.... any such understand life only when it crashes in on them...... in the hands of the very ones they have vilified in the past.....

Your posts are often all over the place - you hate the government one minute, then asking for a handout and for them to take control of something the next minute.

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 5^th, 2014 at 10:38pm:

Somebody in their 20s is not a child! They would get 6 months dole in every 12 months! The stupid idea would cause a drop in private sector spending directly (less money to spend) and indirectly (under 30s currently employed would save money—under the mattress most likely—if they feel they could be made unemployed and with only 6 months inadequate dole every 12 months. Whatever studies you are supposed to have done clearly does not include economics or common sense.

I see. So you're making a pro-business argument for the dole now. Before you just screeched something about it's unfair not to pay them.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 5^th, 2014 at 10:51pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 5th, 2014 at 10:38pm: Somebody in their 20s is not a child! They would get 6 months dole in every 12 months! The stupid idea would cause a drop in private sector spending directly (less money to spend) and indirectly (under 30s currently employed would save money—under the mattress most likely—if they feel they could be made unemployed and with only 6 months inadequate dole every 12 months. Whatever studies you are supposed to have done clearly does not include economics or common sense. I see. So you're making a pro-business argument for the dole now. Before you just screeched something about it's unfair not to pay them.

Not me.

A pro–economy argument.

.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 5^th, 2014 at 10:44pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 5th, 2014 at 10:36pm: Told you already - government in many ways has taken over  that mantle of caring for all.. even by reducing the rights of parents to control their children.... and therefore inherits the earth - the earth, mud and slush of having to support those children they have told their parents they have no real rights in or over and who are, according to government fiat, free to do as they choose. You make the policies and you enforce them to the detriment of others - you take full responsibility and pay the piper. That is ONE grievous fault of 'social engineering' and the excessive input of socio-fascist idealism. I've told you many times to beware of freaks bearing grift.. you never listen... I've also told you many times that by allowing government to take this mantle from us all - we are becoming serfs to its dictatorship - nowhere more revealed than in the attitudes of the current 'government'. Will your 'skills' do you well when we have the equivalent of the Red Guards and the Cultural Revolution - when those such as you were vilified, imprisoned, attacked and re-educated to the new regime and according to the will of the young people blatantly deprived of their rights and their freedoms and the ability to build a secure life and family structure etc, for themselves?? I fear, Grasshopper, that like so many others - you have yet to understand life.... any such understand life only when it crashes in on them...... in the hands of the very ones they have vilified in the past..... Your posts are often all over the place - you hate the government one minute, then asking for a handout and for them to take control of something the next minute.

Again - you are confused, Grasshopper - and it appears to me that you view all posts of issues and ideas as being in some way a direct reflection of the poster.  I do not ever suggest handouts from government - I cite the simple reality that government has taken on that mantle for itself - and thus has taken on the responsibility as well.  That being so - and their policies based thereon - they have no right to complain (as in Joe's laughable 'budget') and change the goal posts to suit themselves at whim, and must instead carry the burden entire of their own making.

And again - when governments take over the roles of parents - again they accept full responsibility for all that accrues thereto.

I do not 'hate' government - I despise it as a far lesser being and unworthy of its munificence, being functionally incapable of performing its DUTY, and as a citizen of this country and fully entitled to do so - I absolutely retain the Right to criticise it at will.

What I suggest is that what is needed is a genuine government that will take control over things and do so properly for a change - unlike the current mode of groups of self-interested people gaining power through 'election' when the choices are as rare as those in current Russia in reality - and will control ITSELF first, and then those who currently thrive under its wrongful governance, while ensuring that it carries out its full responsibilities to the ordinary person who pays its way.

I see no conflict there and no confusion at all - my posts are only confusing to those who dwell in darkness...

Good luck.....

Footnote:-  What is needed here is what a lady from MI6 said to me one - "You would make an excellent benevolent dictator."

Hush, Lass - it's the Oirish in me - we don't think like the Sassenach....

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 6:46am:

How about the government take responsibility. The under 30's didn't sell their jobs to foreign entities. That 'living with the parents' statement doesn't make sense. There's few job vacancies in regional or country Australia. Young people must move to the cities if they want any hope of finding work. What would you have them do? Sit at home out in the sticks forever?

I didn't know you support back peddling everything the enlightenment and liberalist movement fought for, why do you dream of a time when the great monarchy (todays governments) will took responsibility and treated Adults like children, like slaves and tell them what to do and how to do it.


Please how about these ADULTS take responsibility, and find work or even better Create one like i did, and make a business from nothing.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 5^th, 2014 at 11:47pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 5th, 2014 at 10:44pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 5th, 2014 at 10:36pm: Told you already - government in many ways has taken over  that mantle of caring for all.. even by reducing the rights of parents to control their children.... and therefore inherits the earth - the earth, mud and slush of having to support those children they have told their parents they have no real rights in or over and who are, according to government fiat, free to do as they choose. You make the policies and you enforce them to the detriment of others - you take full responsibility and pay the piper. That is ONE grievous fault of 'social engineering' and the excessive input of socio-fascist idealism. I've told you many times to beware of freaks bearing grift.. you never listen... I've also told you many times that by allowing government to take this mantle from us all - we are becoming serfs to its dictatorship - nowhere more revealed than in the attitudes of the current 'government'. Will your 'skills' do you well when we have the equivalent of the Red Guards and the Cultural Revolution - when those such as you were vilified, imprisoned, attacked and re-educated to the new regime and according to the will of the young people blatantly deprived of their rights and their freedoms and the ability to build a secure life and family structure etc, for themselves?? I fear, Grasshopper, that like so many others - you have yet to understand life.... any such understand life only when it crashes in on them...... in the hands of the very ones they have vilified in the past..... Your posts are often all over the place - you hate the government one minute, then asking for a handout and for them to take control of something the next minute. Again - you are confused, Grasshopper - and it appears to me that you view all posts of issues and ideas as being in some way a direct reflection of the poster.  I do not ever suggest handouts from government - I cite the simple reality that government has taken on that mantle for itself - and thus has taken on the responsibility as well.  That being so - and their policies based thereon - they have no right to complain (as in Joe's laughable 'budget') and change the goal posts to suit themselves at whim, and must instead carry the burden entire of their own making. And again - when governments take over the roles of parents - again they accept full responsibility for all that accrues thereto. I do not 'hate' government - I despise it as a far lesser being and unworthy of its munificence, being functionally incapable of performing its DUTY, and as a citizen of this country and fully entitled to do so - I absolutely retain the Right to criticise it at will. What I suggest is that what is needed is a genuine government that will take control over things and do so properly for a change - unlike the current mode of groups of self-interested people gaining power through 'election' when the choices are as rare as those in current Russia in reality - and will control ITSELF first, and then those who currently thrive under its wrongful governance, while ensuring that it carries out its full responsibilities to the ordinary person who pays its way. I see no conflict there and no confusion at all - my posts are only confusing to those who dwell in darkness... Good luck..... Footnote:-  What is needed here is what a lady from MI6 said to me one - "You would make an excellent benevolent dictator." Hush, Lass - it's the Oirish in me - we don't think like the Sassenach....

http://i.imgur.com/t9bPr1l.jpg

What next?

The revolution? Surely!

I hope Tony Abbott and Campbell Newman don't see this, such a policy would be right up their alley.

By the way, Arnold is no relation to Tony, he is a do-gooder, our Tony is a do-badder.

Arnold Abbot, 90, arrested for feeding homeless in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

A NINETY-year-old Good Samaritan could go to prison after he was arrested by police in Florida for serving a meal he had prepared to the homeless.
Arnold Abbot was distributing food to the needy in Fort Lauderdale when he was stopped by cops who said his actions were outlawed by a new local ordinance that bans the sharing of food in public places.

“One of the police officers came over and said ‘Drop that plate right now,’ as if I was carrying a weapon,”


http://www.news.com.au/world/arnold-abbot-90-arrested-for-feeding-homeless-in-fort-lauderdale-florida/story-fndir2ev-1227114102800

Pantheon wrote on Nov 6^th, 2014 at 5:07am:

Please how about these ADULTS take responsibility, and find work or even better Create one like i did, and make a business from nothing.

There is one major hurdle to the overwhelming majority of unemployed in finding a job.

There are only around 167,000 jobs available.

There are about 768,000 people unemployed.

If every job was filled tomorrow you would still have half a million people unemployed.

The dole is not a solution. Just a lousy, temporary fix. Dole payments by governments are not based on goodwill. In reality it is an ice cold calculation by the world bankers to prevent the oppressed, landless people from starting a revolution and overthrowing the governments(the puppets of the world bankers).

Under a good government, no dole would be needed. Under a good government there would be very little taxes and very little restrictions to small businesses, so they would flourish, enabling people to look after themselves.

Under a good world government there would be no fractional reserve banking. No money could be created out of thin air by Reserve Banks and then lent to indebt nations. Further, when no money gets created out of thin air to be lent in form of mortgages, there would be no property bubbles. Property would be affordable to EVERY normal, decent worker.

Under such good governments every decent worker would own land debt-free, self-sufficiency would be high, self employment would be high, small businesses would be plentiful, local produce would dominate, local government would dominate over centralized government and there would be no insanely rich people ($50 million+). The middle class would be the norm.

Every major policy in every Western nation in the last 100 years has been designed by the royal societies to achieve the exact opposite of what I just wrote above. More taxes, indebting nations with "fake" new money, creating property bubbles, increasing taxes, implementing millions of restrictions to small businesses, effectively destroying small business, forcing landowners to sell their land and become rent and mortgage slaves, turning self employed people into slaves(employees), making people dependent, centralizing governments, centralizing food production (far away from where the people live!) and making the royal societies insanely rich.

We are at the peak of royal power. At the peak of tyranny. Now it's time to bring the whole shite-system down and start again with people power. We have completed one cycle of Earthly, material power which lasts around 250 years (Pluto's orbit around the sun).

Pluto is now in Capricorn until 2022, when it will move into Aquarius. Last time Pluto was in that constellation, the French revolution(which in reality was a European revolution) happened and gave birth to modern democracy. Once cycle before that (around 500 years ago), the Reformation happened, which was much more than about religion. It was about the common people fighting back against the Vatican who was taxing the crap out of all Europeans and controlling their lives. Just like today... in a different way. And the same royal bloodlines behind the curtains are doing the taxing and controlling, just like 500 years ago.  ;)

One can google the following term to find interesting stuff to read: pluto + capricorn + "french revolution" + reformation

Raven wrote on Nov 6^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Pantheon wrote on Nov 6th, 2014 at 5:07am: Please how about these ADULTS take responsibility, and find work or even better Create one like i did, and make a business from nothing. There is one major hurdle to the overwhelming majority of unemployed in finding a job. There are only around 167,000 jobs available. There are about 768,000 people unemployed. If every job was filled tomorrow you would still have half a million people unemployed.

How about Adopting a basic income policy to allow business like mine who cant hire Australians because we dont earn enough to pay minimum wage, to hire Australia with what little we have for Gov to cover the Rest, the result is you will have Australians getting back into work and learning new skills instead of doing nothing on welfare.

And once my business start earning enough to pay my employees minimum wage without Government help, the Government can then withdraw help and there you go, the Gov just help created a business employing Australians. 

Pantheon wrote on Nov 6^th, 2014 at 10:14pm:

[snip waffle] Let's pay the dole money to businesses instead of poor people

Sounds great, good sir.

Raven wrote on Nov 6^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Pantheon wrote on Nov 6th, 2014 at 5:07am: Please how about these ADULTS take responsibility, and find work or even better Create one like i did, and make a business from nothing. There is one major hurdle to the overwhelming majority of unemployed in finding a job. There are only around 167,000 jobs available. There are about 768,000 people unemployed. If every job was filled tomorrow you would still have half a million people unemployed.

The official statistics state that but they are wrong.

The number of people who want to work is a lot greater than this.

The number of advertised vacancies is also unrealistic. Most advertised vacancies are not filled by the unemployed but by job swappers, and many of those vacancies exist due to job swapping, not jobs growth. Some vacancies are also not advertised.

Many unemployed people apply for hundreds of jobs before landing one. Some have applied for over a thousand without luck. The ratio of unemployed people to jobs that they have a chance of getting is closer to 100 to 1, not the 4.5 to 1 ratio suggested by the statistics.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 6^th, 2014 at 5:49am:

What next? The revolution? Surely! I hope Tony Abbott and Campbell Newman don't see this, such a policy would be right up their alley. By the way, Arnold is no relation to Tony, he is a do-gooder, our Tony is a do-badder. Arnold Abbot, 90, arrested for feeding homeless in Fort Lauderdale, Florida A NINETY-year-old Good Samaritan could go to prison after he was arrested by police in Florida for serving a meal he had prepared to the homeless. Arnold Abbot was distributing food to the needy in Fort Lauderdale when he was stopped by cops who said his actions were outlawed by a new local ordinance that bans the sharing of food in public places. “One of the police officers came over and said ‘Drop that plate right now,’ as if I was carrying a weapon,” http://www.news.com.au/world/arnold-abbot-90-arrested-for-feeding-homeless-in-fort-lauderdale-florida/story-fndir2ev-1227114102800

Just wait.

That will be happening here within 12-18 months, once Abbott's pathetic economic
performance starts to bite, and the out-of-work have to survive on nothing.

But what sort of low c^%$ would try to prevent someone from feeding the hungry?

That DOES warrant the DP.

Raven wrote on Nov 6^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Pantheon wrote on Nov 6th, 2014 at 5:07am: Please how about these ADULTS take responsibility, and find work or even better Create one like i did, and make a business from nothing. There is one major hurdle to the overwhelming majority of unemployed in finding a job. There are only around 167,000 jobs available. There are about 768,000 people unemployed. If every job was filled tomorrow you would still have half a million people unemployed.

Yes, but for some reason the conned-servatives flatly refuse to acknowledge this.

It's ALL the fault of the 'bludgers' an 'leaners' who 'won't work', don't y'know?.

Effing delusional clowns.

Kat wrote on Nov 7^th, 2014 at 7:10am:

Raven wrote on Nov 6th, 2014 at 12:12pm: Pantheon wrote on Nov 6th, 2014 at 5:07am: Please how about these ADULTS take responsibility, and find work or even better Create one like i did, and make a business from nothing. There is one major hurdle to the overwhelming majority of unemployed in finding a job. There are only around 167,000 jobs available. There are about 768,000 people unemployed. If every job was filled tomorrow you would still have half a million people unemployed. Yes, but for some reason the conned-servatives flatly refuse to acknowledge this. It's ALL the fault of the 'bludgers' an 'leaners' who 'won't work', don't y'know?. Effing delusional clowns.

That's right, they are living it up! Soaking in the sun at the beach by day and sinking a few cold ones at the pub by night all on $13,000 a year.

Bloody bludgers

Bam wrote on Nov 6^th, 2014 at 10:31pm:

Some vacancies are also not advertised.

Actually, most aren't.

Only about 30% of jobs are advertised.

Raven wrote on Nov 7^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

That's right, they are living it up! Soaking in the sun at the beach by day and sinking a few cold ones at the pub by night all on $13,000 a year. Bloody bludgers

Sure, so say the usual suspects. Don't forget the drugs, apparently they get into that stuff in a big way too.....and the pokies. Never has $13,000 gone so far.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 7^th, 2014 at 4:40pm:

Raven wrote on Nov 7th, 2014 at 11:11am: That's right, they are living it up! Soaking in the sun at the beach by day and sinking a few cold ones at the pub by night all on $13,000 a year. Bloody bludgers Sure, so say the usual suspects. Don't forget the drugs, apparently they get into that stuff in a big way too.....and the pokies. Never has $13,000 gone so far.

One thing I couldn't help but notice when I became unemployed during the 'recession we had to have' was the
sheer number of people who had thought like this, and had all the 'dole bludger' claims down pat. UNTIL they
became unemployed themselves, and began to realise that 'the bludgers' actually weren't, and were in reality
NO different to them.

Many commented that they HAD been wrong about the unemployed, and that they'd never have been aware
until they found themselves in the same shoes.

Maybe a year on the dole should be mandatory, it'd teach some people a bit of humility and compassion.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 1:12am:

If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.

That’s right, Mistie. You lived with your parents until you made Professor, no?

Karnal wrote on Nov 7^th, 2014 at 5:34pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 1:12am: If you're under 30 and homeless without money then you can thank your parents. There seems to be this odd thinking amongst "progressives" that once you're 18 then the state is your new mummy and daddy and your biological (or step) parents are relinquished of their parental responsibilities.  That’s right, Mistie. You lived with your parents until you made Professor, no?

Nope. I moved out when I was 19 and never went back. Didn't need to. They would have welcomed me back with open arms of course if I had extreme financial difficulty. Sounds radical hey.

Somebody is an ordinary Joe Blow, with three adult kids under 30.

Can he afford to keep all three if they were made unemployed and lost the dole 6 months every year (and the unemployment will last years, with the recession bearing down on us) on an average salary?

This is evil, evil and stupid policy and I cannot believe anyone would try and justify this crap!

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 7^th, 2014 at 9:43pm:

Somebody is an ordinary Joe Blow, with three adult kids under 30. Can he afford to keep all three if they were made unemployed and lost the dole 6 months every year (and the unemployment will last years, with the recession bearing down on us) on an average salary? This is evil, evil and stupid policy and I cannot believe anyone would try and justify this crap!

Your pro-economy argument didn't last long. Back to 'they just should have the dole'.

The pro–economy argument works really well in the situation I sketched.

But it is evil as well as stupid.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 7^th, 2014 at 10:07pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Nov 7th, 2014 at 9:43pm: Somebody is an ordinary Joe Blow, with three adult kids under 30. Can he afford to keep all three if they were made unemployed and lost the dole 6 months every year (and the unemployment will last years, with the recession bearing down on us) on an average salary? This is evil, evil and stupid policy and I cannot believe anyone would try and justify this crap! Your pro-economy argument didn't last long. Back to 'they just should have the dole'.

Social security is part of the economy - and it is a strong underpinning of it since it returns to government 100% of the cash outlaid within a very short space of time through the cycle of taxation, and generates a predictable amount of economic activity.

That's why adverse comments on Kevin's handout to the poor are without foundation - those handout stimulated the economy at a time of slump and kept doors of businesses open for Christmas.

100% of it wouldn't be returned to the government. The dole goes on things like rent and food. Real estates and Woolworths managers probably buy new cars or ivory back-scratchers with it.