Tristan, the times, they are a changin', and you are living in the past. You are not a social progressive, you are a social conservative who is trying to keep afloat a sinking socialist philosophy which has proven to have failed, over and over again.

So too, Multiculturalism has failed. It is not just the terrorism, and the realisation by the "sophisticated" Euros that if they don't start getting a bit racist, then Europe is going to end up a dysfunctional and bankrupt society where "liberals" such as yourself had better shut up, or the local Imam will set his dogs join you. It is the growing realisation that mixing races and cultures produces cultural self suicide. If you think that you are going to build a society where Transgender Nigel and "his" LGTBIDOPJKYXZ "partner" Bruce, with their surrogate child they bought from Thailand, are going to live in peace, harmony and mutual respect with Muhammad, with his flowing beard, his Centrelink payments, and his four child brides, you must have rocks in your head.

Real liberals can see the threat to their own cultures existence from social conservatives like yourself, who are extremist anti discriminationists, think that money grows on trees, and the answer to everything is to just tax 'the rich" more. They tried that in Detroit and the most productive people who paid most of the taxes just fled the damned place and left the ever growing numbers of unproductive to go figure.

The intelligent people in the western world are moving to the Right, Tristan, and as old Bob Dylan once crooned "get out of the new world if you can't lend your hand."

Turnbull lost the election because he was a smug rich bloke who wanted to be a PM in order to complete his CV, and he treated the job as a hobby. He mouthed the usual left wing platitudes, sucked up to the ABC reactionaries, politely ate Halal with the Imams as they told him how homosexuals must be executed, and thereby lost his the trust of the Liberal Party's most reliable voters.

' For self-espoused Christians, heartless LNP policies on defunding an Aged Care sector already characterised by regressive and callous user-pays mechanisms need to be rejected utterly.'

Oh yeah Tristan your slimy little representation of the ' heartless' and ' callous' policies of Christians of course in contrast to the regressives who see no problem butchering babies is dishonest and quite disgusting. It is you regressives that has positioned Australia in a place where all funding is at risk due to the incompetence and wasteful spending while in power. Of course the regressives who have demonstrated so much self interest throughout the last 10 years are the ones so full of heart. One really needs a bucket near by to read such deception.

Runner, the point of that part of the article was exactly that compassionate Christians should think again about austerity where it affects the most vulnerable. Especially the Aged. I'm not attacking Christianity generally. Though I worry about the most right-wing tendencies. I'm saying Christians can, should, and largely do better than this. I'm a Christian myself - and it is an appeal to Christians within the LNP to do the right thing by the vulnerable.

LEGO ; If Conservative Islam SPECIFICALLY, or even the most right-wing Christian tendencies - made up, say, 15 per cent of the population - then I would be worried about the potential impact on liberal rights this country. Not because I'm fixated on Islam generally like some Conservatives - but because CONSERVATIVE Islam SPECIFICALLY is not compatible with personal liberties we cherish in this country should it one day acquire a decisive kind of influence.

But to put it bluntly, I don't think that's going to happen. And discriminating against and vilifying muslims in this country is ill-advised - and itself can only be a radicalising influence. Muslims make about perhaps less than 2 per cent of this country. The communities are diverse ; and Some of them are liberal Muslims. Full acceptance of their rights and their dignity - is what is needed to hold this country together.

' I'm a Christian myself - and it is an appeal to Christians within the LNP to do the right thing by the vulnerable. '

then I suggest Tristan telling the truth rather than demonising those you disagree with.

The truth is that Turnbull led the way in making about $1.5 billion in cuts to Aged Care - focusing on cutting Pain Relief.

Shorten originally opposed the measure. But under intense pressure to 'cut spending' capitulated and also supported the cuts. BOTH parties' behaviour, here, was disgusting. Though Turnbull had led the way - and as such precipitated the whole thing.

Some people in the LNP have also been saying NDIS is 'unaffordable' - which is also appalling given what is at stake for the disabled and their carers ; And then they want to attack other vulnerable pensioners to pay for it. (because NDIS is popular, and they can't get away with just axing it)

The most vulnerable will never be sufficiently provided for through charity. It is a luxury of people like Tony Abbott that they seek to tear down the welfare state while 'salving their consciences' by doing charity work on the side. 'Tearing down the welfare state' condemns the most vulnerable to destitution and untold suffering. Self-professed Christians in the LNP need to face the consequences of their actions. It is OUTCOMES for the vulnerable that matter.

That said I'm sure there are good people on the LNP side of politics who want to do better. Including self-professed Christians. But just as I'm calling out Shorten for capitulating on Aged Care and other measures - kinder souls in the LNP need to publicly grapple with the consequences of austerity measures which take from the most vulnerable. *Some* of them have plenty to say about equal marriage, for instance - but little to say about the ordeals the Aged are made to endure in this country.

I am a socialist AND a social and political liberal. But remember that the welfare state was first initiated by Conservatives such as Bismarck. For some of them it was to 'retain control' by doing for the oppressed what they would not let them do for themselves. But also there was a deal of compassion and decency from some as well. Its those 'better angels' I'm appealing to.

I'm sure there are some facts in there somewhere alongside the patent partisan position? One of those facts is the need for genuine progressive tax reform. And an essential must if we're ever to return to a balanced budget, fully funded social justice and the occasional surplus!

And the reform we need will likely be resisted to the last breath by vested interest on both sides of the aisle, sure to come good with a plethora of patently puerile excuses for failing to embrace absolutely essential reform; and basically welded to the status quo?

Moreover, as a consequence when we change anything? Everything including the loopholes and rip offs remain essentially the same including the almost obligatory weasel words, only the inherent complexity increases, much to the delight of the tax industry? Who would be the only ones harmed if their parasitical unproductive practices were ever fully rationalized!?
Alan B.

A load of waffle. Turnbull is too far to the left, and he was punished for it. That's all there is to it. If the Coalition doesn't get rid of him quick smart, they will disappear along with him.

Alan B. I agree there's been opportunism on both sides this election. Just look to the inadequate policies on superannuation concessions - which Richard Denniss anticipated would soon cost $50 billion a year. People want to believe they can have both tax cuts and universal health care without any need for compromise. Or they think Govt should lay the boot into welfare-dependent - that is, until something happens to a loved one or to themselves. (eg: accident, mental illness, retrenchment) We have very small government by OECD standards. But aiming to increase social expenditure and investment by 5% of GDP a year - arrived at over 10 years - would make an enormous difference. While still leaving us well short of a welfare state of Nordic proportions. Unfortunately what we're left with is 'convergence politics'. Yes Shorten broke out when it came to negative gearing, capital gains tax concessions, company tax cuts - and he defended Medicare. But express it in terms of what the policies add up to as a proportion of GDP - and there's still a lot of 'convergence'. This election was a step forward for Labor - but Labor needs to 'build momentum' and start campaigning for real change sooner and not later. Labor doesn't want to be caught out and have to make 'root and branch compromises' net election like occurred during this election.

And now the Rightwinger nasties (Dutton, Andrews, Bernardi) will rise after the discreditable Turnbull result . That lot will unashameably service the interests of the Big End of town. Abbott's hateful mischief on the edges.

Ironicly Harbourside Turnbull is squarely Big End of Town himself, but with a centrist facade.

Austerity cuts for the poor

Tax loophole "financial prudence" and middle class welfare for the rich.

The rise of the Coalition rightwingers will ruin the LNP brand over the next three years, making many suffer.

Silver lining is that it will be easier for Labor (probably under Shorten) to clean sweep in the 2019 Election.

plantagenet,

Agreed, you're probably correct. Many voters won't get the message until their McMansions are worth half their mortgages and they're bankrupted by medical bills.
The worst outcome for any Coalition government is to gain control of the Senate, then the gloves are off and the neoliberal ideologues will intensify the class war, they just can't resist even though it's counterproductive to to the chances of reelection. Howard and the toxic Work Choices legislation is a good example.

Big problems for the new parliament trying to position the various
parties and the reality of our financial difficulties.
I think a change is presently taking place in the mantra of pay the debt off.
A realisation, as in the US, that we cannot and will never pay off the debt.

So there will be little real talk of cutting spending, the voters
will not accept cutbacks anyway.
That being the case the government might as well just borrow whatever
money it needs.
The government can adopt the US technique of just issuing pixel money.

I suspect a "wink & a nod, say no more", between Labour & Liberal that
we are in for a big financial crash not too far away so we might as
well go out with a bang and S & P's opinions of Australia will not
matter anyway as no one will be paying off debt or interest.

The truth is Tristan that socialist are proven in this country to be economic vandals. They hide behind the compassionate banner while promising what they know is impossioble to deliver. You obviousy ignore what the welfare state has done to the Indigeneous of the land. You guys are quick to use the genocide word and yet nothing has contributed more the death of Indigeneous than the welfare state. You know that education, health and disability services will never ever have enough cash especially in the eyes of greedy unionist and Government employees who never get enough. One day you will wake up to the fact that making false promises is straight out lying. Pretending you are more compassionate than greedy Christians on the right is a bare face lie.

Runner I'm not singling out Christians per se for attack. As I said I'm a Christian myself. What I did say is that a callous or hypocritical approach to welfare is bad for the vulnerable. And that 'Christians' who attack the vulnerable are acting like hypocrites. The truth is that our welfare state is extremely modest compared with the Nordics. Our levels of social expenditure are about HALF as much as theirs.

There are several principles involved - including;

a) Social Insurance - ie: we all pay a little tax to 'insure' against retrenchment, illness, injury, old age, poverty. The same as private forms of insurance - but with better value for money....

b) Social Wage - some of our 'wages' are paid collectively and socially: a form of redistribution which recognises that low wage workers can be exploited ; and even those on higher wages can get a better deal when 'collectively consuming' education, health, infrastructure, services, child care, public and social housing. Medicare is an example!

c) Welfare State - can be interpreted as including the same as above ; But can also include support for truly vulnerable citizens - eg: the disabled.

What you said about indigenous Australians - is not so much the fault of the welfare state ; it's about alienation and a clash of cultures. Withdrawing welfare from indigenous peoples is not any 'answer'. What might help is a dignified Treaty ; self-government (with anti-corruption safeguards); loans and subsidies for indigenous co-operative enterprises. To achieve dignity, self-determination.

IN Sweden their system - including their welfare state - helped secure a regime of full employment, social security and high wages throughout the 1950s and 1960s. They still have one of the strongest welfare states ; and their people are attached to the security and value-for-money they enjoy ; they aren't in any rush to abandon their particular social compromise.

Welfare States were also started by Conservatives ; are not restricted only to socialist governments ; See my prior comments on Bismarck for instance.

For God's sake, Tristan, get on Youtube, click on "Sweden" and "Muslims", and have a look into the future of Australia.

Sweden was once touted by Socialists as the perfect welfare state society, and a model for the future. It has become a model all right. A model for what a nation full of prosperous and self absorbed humanitarians will become because it's cossetted population was so far removed from the hard realities of life, that they would lemming like commit social self suicide, rather than get their hands dirty fighting for their own survival. Sweden is now the rape capitol of the world, and these rapes are not being done by the local Mormons.

Every single western country is now mired in incredible dept, and you say we must spend more on welfare? According to the "dept clock" websites I have seen, "the Nordics" are broke and getting broker. Sweden AUS$ 214 billion in dept. Norway 54 billion AUS$ in dept. Denmark 123AUS$. The list goes on. The USA 21 trillion. Britain 3 trillion. France 2 trillion. The western welfare state which socialists like yourself dreamed about became a reality. But it is now doomed. One reason was because people like your good self got stupid and encouraged every third worlder in the world to swarm into your country and help themselves to a social welfare system that they never paid for. 50% of Muslims in Europe and Australia are on the dole. The Muslim suburb of Auburn in Sydney has the highest number of long term welfare recipients in the whole of Australia.

"Elephant?" says Tristan. "What elephant?" "Tax the rich."

Like the Swedes, Tristan, you may not possess the capacity to look reality in the face until it turns around and bites you on the bum. But fortunately, other people can. There is a growing realisation among the population that unless we do something about our economy, and do something about our immigration policies, we will go bankrupt and our once enviable society will go down the toilet.

Turnbull only offered lessaize fair.

I read with concern the following -

"Posted by Bazz, Monday, 11 July 2016 4:47:18 PM
"I suspect a "wink & a nod, say no more", between Labour & Liberal that we are in for a big financial crash not too far away so we might as well go out with a bang and S & P's opinions of Australia will not matter anyway as no one will be paying off debt or interest."

This is not the first time this matter of debt and interest has been discussed and it is logical and sensible to have a sober attitude towards it. It's spoken and written about almost daily.

But could someone please help me out a bit here?

Pardon my economic ignorance, but to whom (I don't think it's my local building society) do we owe this debt and interest?

And as is pointed out here -

"Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 12 July 2016 5:15:51 AM
"Every single western country is now mired in incredible debt..."

So I ask, who are the people/organisations collecting all the interest payable from these foolish countries that have flogged their credit cards too much? Where's all this credit coming from? And where's all the interest going? Whoever it is must be mighty wealthy by now.

Or, is it as I suspect, this debt and interest are nothing more than a lot of bits and bytes in someone's global data base that has no actual tangible reality?

Who controls this data base?

I'd really like to know the answers to these questions, because they'd put Mr Tristan Ewins' essay and the comments above into greater perspective for me.

Anybody?

voxUnius, the parliament Office of Finance's web site does show info
on Australia's borrowing. I have not looked at it for some time.
It appears that most of the government borrowing is in Australian dollars.
Much would have come from overseas.
Then there is the borrowing of companies and personal debt such as
housing debt.
The total is over one trillion dollars of which the govt debt is about
$400 billion as far as I remember.
Anyway, it does not matter as it will never be paid back.
The so called "quantitative easing" we have heard so much about in
recent years is just money printing with a "nicer" word.
There is another word for it "Pixel Money" ie the pixels on the screen
when the Central Bankers click "send" on so many $Billions.
Frankly the whole thing is sounding dodgey.
Like you I would like to hear some really knowledgeable feedback.

About $250 Billion is owned by various Australian governments. About $750 Billion is PRIVATE debt. Private debt is by far the biggest problem. But all we ever seem to hear about is public debt. That is: the public sector is expected to shoulder the burden for the private sector with Austerity and so on. If we want to get public sector debt specifically under control the way to go is to raise tax ; and to service that debt sustainably such as to keep it proportionately steady ; or otherwise to gradually reduce its scope.

But one thing we have to remember is that investment often requires borrowing. And if we do not borrow to invest in infrastructure for instance - the whole economy will suffer reduced productivity.

Some will say therefore that the government should 'step back' and let the private sector provide infrastructure and services instead. Problem is that the private sector raises finance less efficiently than the public sector. Only governments enjoy 'AAA credit ratings'. Then there's the cost of executive salaries, private dividends and so on. Also you don't want the private sector moving in on what are properly natural public monopolies - using market power to fleece the public.

There's also the possibility the global finance system could break down with defaults on debt ; and the US owes more than just about anyone ; but who's going to force them to pay up? And what would happen to the global economy under such circumstances?

Runner - if a welfare system can cushion people against 'the hard realities of life' maybe that's not such a bad thing? Not such a bad thing if people don't end up on the street and unable to feed themselves and their family if they lose their jobs...

What you also need to do re: debt is to view it all in proportion. Sweden might have about $200 billion in debt... But how much is private and how much is public? And comparing them to Australia - and in proportion - which is really better off? If Sweden has more productive assets still in public ownership that has to be considered as well.

The debt is also a feature of capitalism. Where markets can't expand fast enough to absorb production. And debt is the only thing keeping economic growth going. Ironically it is socialist measures that could save capitalism. Under these circumstances efficiencies could create room for private consumption elsewhere. So again think natural public monopolies in areas like power, water, communications, other infrastructure and so on.

The problem is people going on about debt without understanding these facts. It is always used to justify public austerity. But no-one is turning on the banks for instance - and demanding they stop extending credit ad infinitum to people who may never be able to pays those debts off.

The purpose of commercial debt is to enable wages to be paid to those
producing the "goods" before they are sold.
The purpose of housing debt is to enable shelter to be available long
before the family can pay for it.

Those forms of debt are essential but we seem to have gone off on a
frolic of borrowing to finance "entitlements" as they have become known.

A crunch is coming as now the Italian Banks are in trouble.
A while back Germany wanted to send accountants to the US's Ft Knox
to count its gold bars. They were told it was not convenient.
Next Germany asked for their Gold bars to be sent back.
They were told No not at this time.

It is thought that they might have been leased or sold multiple times.
The question is will Deutcher Bank just say nothing because if they
say the US has stolen them Deutcher Bank & Germany will be considered
bankrupt and the Euro will crash.
Now the above was just newspaper reports but no one denied it.
If it is true then everything we own is just pixel money.

' Runner - if a welfare system can cushion people against 'the hard realities of life' maybe that's not such a bad thing? Not such a bad thing if people don't end up on the street and unable to feed themselves and their family if they lose their jobs... '

Who ever suggested that all welfare is a bad thing Tristan? The reality is that much welfare has been a disincentive for many to work. Whether it is generations of white hippies at Byron Bay or the Islamic men with a number of their wives collecting the dole so they don't have to work.

I have met many who spend the majority of welfare on drugs/alcohol and then use foodbank salvos etc to feed the family (if they are lucky). The socialist has set up a welfare system that encourages bludging. Try talking to some people who have come from other nations who can't believe how dumb our Government is.

Welfare should never be seen as an entitlement but as a way of giving a hand up not out. The socialist have created industries around giving out tax payers money.

btw calling the old age pension welfare is really an insult.

Thanks Bazz,

I regret to some extent that I'm economics naive. But then I can't help but think there's something fishy about all of this stuff. Like if everyone's in debt, then who's got the dough?

There's some kind of scam going on here. It's a put and take thing. If nations are taking (debt), then someone's got to be putting and then wanting back (principle and interest), but who are they?

I think you're correct Bazz - it's pixel money, bits and bytes, and one day the scam is going to crash. It simply has to.

Whatever, maybe China and Switzerland have all the money. But go figure, China buys US bonds I believe. Doesn't sound smart to be buying stocks in debt. But like you say about Germany, one day maybe China will want they're money back and the US can't pay up. Now there's a recipe for serious global excitement - bang!

And Tristan, you ask, "Sweden might have about $200 billion in debt... But how much is private and how much is public? And comparing them to Australia - and in proportion - which is really better off?"

Well, in proportion, with Sweden having just 9 million population and Australia with 23+ million, debt per capita is probably less here than there. Just a guestimate.

Anyway, I don't want to be rude, but I won't be able to stay on line now. I've got to go and do some chores.

Thanks for all the info folks.

Thanks mac

Re: "The worst outcome for any Coalition government is to gain control of the Senate,..."

Fortunately the Coalition (of the Barely Willing) is very unlikely to gain control of the Senate.

Projecting from http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/results/senate/

Coalition - around 34 Senate seats
Labor - 30
But Cross Benchers - likely 12
(of that 12 all seem non-aligned and 6 are Greens while 6 seem center-rightwing-haven't settled their policies)

So Turnbull will hopefully need to argue most of his Big End of Town (take a) BET legislation.

Pete

Yes I had thought of that already - that Sweden is less than half the (population) size of Australia. In any case the figures must look frightening to Runner. But the real issue is whether the debt is serviceable. That in mind - our public debt is not yet that bad by global standards. And whether gains to productivity etc from public investments are worth the cost of servicing that debt. Privatising infrastructure or just neglecting it is not the answer mind you.

Also I don't see that the word 'welfare' should be taken as an insult - unless you're a right-winger who likes the idea of stigmatising and persecuting vulnerable people.

Yes most Aged people have paid tax their whole lives. But wait until the future - when most people will retire on superannuation. And watch it turn bad as the comfortably well-off complain about the 'burden' of paying for the Aged Pension. ALSO: Already the Aged are suffering as a consequence of oppressive user-pays for Aged Care - and the poor quality of that care.

other pensions include the Disability Pension, Student Allowance, Sole Parent pension, Newstart Allowance.

Newstart needs to be seen as a combination of unemployment insurance and a meagre 'guaranteed minimum income'. Even big business has recognised it is so meagre it actually impedes people from successfully looking for work.

The DSP is rigorously policed ; and for those who cannot find or hold on to regular work - it is crucial to those people, and to their carers. Arguably it needs to be more flexible. Also providing a Guaranteed minimum income to the genuinely disabled ; and supplementing incomes if suitable flexible work is found.

Sole Parents are much maligned by the Right l but raising kids/social reproduction can be hard work. Expectations that sole parents can hold down work and raise young families simultaneously is probably sometimes misplaced - and unfair to the kids involved.

Student Allowance is so low it forces students to supplement incomes with work ; But that can detract from focus on study itself ; increasing drop-out rates ; and the consequent waste of education resources.

There should be no stigma attached to welfare. It is a mix of compassion and social security ; mixed with the principle of social insurance and social wage payment. Welfare systems are signs of a more civilised and coherent society.

Well voxUnis I am economically naive also as I have just picked up
bits here and there.
China has been selling US treasury bonds but slowly. I guess they do
not want to scare the horses.

What I said about the German gold. They did get some of it back but
some of the bars had been recast so the serial numbers were then lost.
That suggests that they were someone else's gold.

From the reading I did today after I wrote that other post it seems
that gold is a pretty dodgy market place unless you have it your hand.

The difference between public dept and private dept, Tristan, is if you borrow on the private market, you are supposed to cover the loan with collateral.

Public dept is another matter. A Socialist party wants to win an election, so it says to "the poor" that if you vote for us, we will tax "the rich" and give their money to you. The "poor" begin to realise that they need not work in low paying entry level jobs, they can just be parasites and let "the rich" pay them a living. More and more "poor" people get in on the scam, and then ordinary working class wage earners begin to realise that the Socialists consider them to be "the rich."

The Socialists ensure their continued electoral support by importing dysfunctional people from dysfunctional cultures who are almost guaranteed to become economic dependents of the State. It is hardly surprising that the six largely Muslim electorates in Sydney now comprise the Labor heartland, while the working class Australian electorates now generally vote for the Libs, or Pauline.

The "poor" keep growing in numbers through birth rate differentials or immigration. The Socialist parties bribe the ever growing dysfunctional class to vote for them, and when they run out of money they simply borrow it and leave the problem for the next generation. The productive "rich" get taxed so much that they go somewhere else and take their wealth creating skills with them. That is exactly what happened in Greece and Detroit.

' Sole Parents are much maligned by the Right l but raising kids/social reproduction can be hard work. Expectations that sole parents can hold down work and raise young families simultaneously is probably sometimes misplaced - and unfair to the kids involved.'

quite ironic Tristan that socialist have largely encouraged the destruction of the family unit and now you claim the high ground again. Maybe if your godless ideologies were not so prevelant their would be far fewer sole parents and thus could be looked after better. Something that socialist rarely consider I suspect. Just more tax payer money for situations socialist dogma greatly contributes to.

LEGO ; There are workers on minimum or too-close to minimum wage. Child care workers, aged care workers, hospitality, retail, tourism, cleaning. All these areas are basically socially-essential. Yet a stock-broker who produces nothing useful can expect to be a millionaire ; Yet someone who deals with human pain, death and suffering on a day-by-day basis (eg: in aged care) is in virtual poverty. Under those circumstances surely it is fair to have a social wage - to smooth out the extreme differences in the labour market?

re: "the working class" , "the poor" and "the rich" - all these need to be viewed in perspective. The Liberals would like you to believe $150,000 is a 'pretty average wage'. But we're really talking about the top 5% and maybe less there. We're talking about the wealthy and 'the upper middle class'.

Its a Liberal/Conservative trick to try and turn working class people against the vulnerable ; and even to divide the most vulnerable and the working poor against each other.

What is needed in the place of this is real solidarity and a fair go for all. That should mean fairer welfare - lifting the truly vulnerable out of poverty. But it should also mean incentives for those currently reasonably-considered as working poor. Stronger labour market regulation, a stronger social wage , tax incentives, industrial rights and liberties for unions to help lift the working poor out of poverty.

LEGO, for you to brand the most vulnerable as "the dysfunctional class" smacks of contempt. Tell me: do you include the working poor in that category ; or do you only mean those with profound disability, mental illness etc? What would you have us do? Eugenics? Culling?

Yes, there need to be incentives for skill, effort, education, productive risk-taking and so on. Even Marxists such as Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky recognised this would be the case. And even under socialism. But you can have that without the extremes of poverty ; and without gutting social insurance and the social wage.

Also Runner ; Christian and Jewish teachings implore us to care for the vulnerable. Christianity especially embraces a kind of 'anti-materialist' posture for which there is RESPECT for the poor. But you argue for austerity against and contempt for the most vulnerable welfare recipients while assuming that 'God is on your side'. Arguing for a 'hand up' is fine. I would say on the basis of Marx's famous "from each according to ability, to each according to need". For people to contribute as best they can, and to receive what they need. Basic, material and social needs , including what is necessary in absolute and relative terms for social inclusion and a meaningful and fulfilling life.

' Christianity especially embraces a kind of 'anti-materialist' posture for which there is RESPECT for the poor.'

You ignore the fact that socialism leads to poverty, self entitlement and lack of dignity. Most socialist are very happy to give away other peoples money to the mess they have largely created. Really it is theft by another name. I suspect few of them give out of their own pocket. You really have no idea Tristan just sprouting humanistic garbage while taking the high moral ground.

Tristan.

As a person who once lived in an 84 unit Housing Commission block of flats, I can tell you that your biggest critics are the very same people who get up early every morning and go to work in very low paid jobs, while their neighbours sit on the dole forever and laugh at them. The workers vote for Pauline.

I was once idealistic like yourself. I thought that we could end poverty in Australia by having a social security system that helped those who genuinely needed government assistance, and by giving people who wanted to work a leg up. But then I realised that when it came to the long term unemployed, most of it was caused by low intelligence. As I went of to work and did my apprenticeship, my own mates threw in their own apprenticeships and went surfing every day. Why work when you can get on the dole? Where my mates are today, I do not have a clue. I left those losers far behind me. But you can bet they are still whining, scamming, selling dope, and holding out the begging bowl while people like yourself feel sorry for them.

My own cousin sold her Housing Commission house and bought a Mercedes Benz. She went to the shops and spent, spent, spent, and now it is all gone. Now she rings me up every now and again to beg me for money. Her daughter has had four kids to her husband, and two kids to her husband's son, (from one of his previous liaisons). She now lives on the South Coast with six teenage and adolescent kids, all on the dole, and all of them getting in trouble with the police.

I don't know why you oppose Eugenics, because Eugenics already exists. Unfortunately, it is going the other way. It is the stupid people who are doing all the breeding. Intelligent people, especially intelligent women, are hardly breeding at all.

And we can never end poverty while our immigration program keeps importing it. 50% of Muslims are on the dole. Stop importing Muslims.