A "distinguished fellow" at the centre for "independent" studies - what a hoot.
And yes I agree with Poirot - when is the pork-barrel gravy train for the comfortably well off going to be down sized.
Although to be fair I suspect that Peter has at times criticized this phenomenon too.

@ Killarney: "Their attitudes range from 'Thank God I can put food on the table' to 'If it weren't for government assistance, we'd be living on the street'."

Personally I think that is an issue. You stop "doing" anything with them and set them free to "do" for themselves. All we (society) and the government have to "do" is to let them exercise their many abilities. Your whole vocabulary speaks of the disenfranchisement, the imprisonment of initiative, and the patronising relegation to second-class citizens which are the hallmarks of the welfare "gulag."

Sure for the totally disabled etc I do think it's a necessity but having a child is not a disability, curse or entitlement.

I agree with Killarney that there are some who really need the help. It does not always work to have young children in out of hours care especially if the child is not coping well with the impacts of family separation.There are limited job opportunities available to parents within hours which actually work for the stuff parents often need to do with children and schools. Especially so if you are the new starter in a job rather than established in a job where mutual trust has been built up.

I also thing that we need more accountability in some situations to save that help being wasted on those trying to play the system, those who use the guise of being there for the for the kids and are anything but there for the kids. There are not easy answers to any of that, more options for support when children are not doing well (but not being able to use that as an excuse by parents who don't act responsibly).

We certainly need reform in the child support system to cut out the financial incentives for conflict and keeping the non-resident parent out of children's lives so that parents have some motivation to work together for the well being of their children. many of the issues faced by single parents can be reduced if the other parent is actively involved. The current system has so many flaws that it almost looks like it was designed to create conflict rather than reduce it.

R0bert

"'Find it galling when I encounter the "World owes me this and more and you can go jump" attitude of some welfare recipients'

You know something? I find the insensitive and cliched moralising in statements like this far MORE galling. And I suspect the only time you've 'encountered' such an attitude is through some media beat-up on some commercial current affairs program."

Killarney - Note the word "SOME" in the sentence you quote. During 12 years working in Public Health I encountered a great many welfare recipients. SOME, the majority, were genuine folk in a tight spot needing a hand out and hand up. SOME, unfortunately, were bludgers playing the system for all they could, irresponsible losers with no intention of ever trying to earn a living themselves and a fraudster or two thrown in here and there.

My third sentence: " Fair adequate welfare is a benchmark for civilised society, recognizing those who require support - short or long term. Yes - I call it a "right" but like all "rights" - with responsibilities attached."

So that makes me a "rampant right-wing welfare-hater"? Because I expect welfare to have some obligation attached? Or does it make you look like someone who doesn't read well?

I mentioned my youngest son - on a Disability payment for 6 years. He has permanent brain damage but has managed to reach the stage where he's now self supporting. It wasn't an easy journey but he hopes to shoot more goals. Welfare helped him to help himself and it's there as a safety net - which is what it's meant to do.

It's not meant to support women with multiple children by multiple partners to spend much of their time and payment at the pub. It's not meant for the fit 18 yr old who is capable of working but refuses to do menial work because he doesn't fancy it. If you think it is - more fool you. Otherwise maybe you "protest too much"?

divine msn

What difference does the use of ‘some’ make, when you’ve successfully tarred all welfare recipients with the same brush? Why this kneejerk obligation, every time welfare is discussed, to bring up some infinitesimal number of people who supposedly rort the welfare system?

In your work for the Department of Health, perhaps you should have sat down and talked to some of those ‘irresponsible losers’ you so despise. Every loser has their story. They more than likely have a disability too, only it’s on the inside.

poirot

'supporting lone parents to "be there" for their kids'

Agree. A compassionate society would see this as absolutely essential. But we've become an increasingly unforgiving society that has become so obssessed with bottom lines and economic growth, that it's sunk to punishing children of single parents for the crime of turning 8.

"What difference does the use of ‘some’ make, when you’ve successfully tarred all welfare recipients with the same brush?"

Dear Killarny! "SOME, the majority, were genuine folk in a tight spot needing a hand out and hand up." in first paragraph of my response to ur accusations as well as my reiteration that I consider welfare a human right - for those in genuine need. BTW how do you think I would have known the situations of my patients if I wasn't talking to them AND doing something to help where possible? Even the DROPKICKS - for the sake of their dependents mainly.

I have to advise you to either read more carefully, seek treatment for paranoia or to remove a chip off your shoulder? Maybe all of the above ...

Meantime, the MORE that happens to encourage, support and even PUSH those capable of helping themselves to do so the BETTER - for society, the economy and the individual.