skippy. wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 8:56am:


as a matter of fact drippy I said at the time it was a stupid comment on a different forum of witch i dont think you were a member   

... wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 8:58am:



It's difficult to find work during school hours. That means that single parents then need to pay for after school care. With the new arrangements, that care should be free. We are going to have a lot of young children walking home fom school and spending the afternoon alone because their parents can't afford the care fees. That's asking for trouble.

I've heard many stories about tragedies occuring because single parents in other countries (like the US) are forced to leave their children at home alone during the night while they go out and work. Fires, home invasions, abductions, etc.

And what about people with no skills? The government is targeting the wrong group of people. Single parents have a tough enough road as it is.

Why have children in the first place if you can't afford to look after them?

Why offer people $5000 baby bonus, if they cant afford kids in the first place.    

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 9:11am:


Maybe then, out of necessity, we might move away from the corporate model of childcare - we don't need a 20 year old with a degree in early childhood care, when an old grandmother will do the job better, for a fraction of the cost.  The children get better care, the elderly are utilised, and yound people stop being taken to the cleaners for silly, frivolous degrees - everybody wins!

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 9:11am:



They should get some skills.    Basing a policy around the lowest common denominator is rubbish - there will always be losers, no matter what.  The question is how far do we let them drag everyone else down before we accept that?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 9:11am:


Who's fault is that?

Quote:



Good point Crook,
why encourage people who have no ability to afford children to have children
& then cut their money supply as Macklin has done?

Labor has encouraged a whole class of impoverished people to be more impoverished.

It's difficult to find work during school hours. That means that single parents then need to pay for after school care. With the new arrangements, that care should be free. We are going to have a lot of young children walking home fom school and spending the afternoon alone because their parents can't afford the care fees. That's asking for trouble.

I've heard many stories about tragedies occuring because single parents in other countries (like the US) are forced to leave their children at home alone during the night while they go out and work. Fires, home invasions, abductions, etc.

And what about people with no skills? The government is targeting the wrong group of people. Single parents have a tough enough road as it is.

These comments by Annie Anthrax are the most sensible things that have been said on this thread.
Single parents, overwhelmingly mothers, already from a disadvantaged gender group, have a horrendous task and desrve the best the welfare state can deliver, not the crumbs. They should not be the whipping girls of a spurious govt's attempts to balance it's spurious books.
I always thought the welfare state was about compassion and a hand up. I wonder what Bob Hawke would be thinking about this.

It seems to be a common thought here that as soon as a person becomes a single parent they have to give up work..that is totally wrong.
The first mistake these people make is to quit their jobs and let the rest of the community look after them until any skills they once had become out of date and useless rendering these people unemployable.

Stay in the workforce, keep updating your skills and you will never have any need to the dole or a single parents pension.
Its the same for single parent families as it is for the majority of two parent families where both parents have to keep working after they start having kids