oh for gooness sake, tus.

Addicted to welfare? lol!!

Children who grow up in houses where nobody works just do not learn about 'work' or 'working'. They just don't have the skills (like organising, like planning, like thinking about tomorrow) that will allow them to be able to work or study.

These things do not come naturally. Humans are social animals and need to be socialised (by the way we are brought up) to understand how to behave the way our society wants us to behave.

So it is not enough to just get people off welfare, they need to be be given the skills that will give them a basic understanding of what it means to work.

Col's adage about teaching 'a man'(!) to fish is relevant here. But I don't see Peter Saunders advocating that the govt give any fishing lessons. However, check out the new article by the alternative Peter Saunders.

Philo said , "get a little dirt on your hands boy " . strange , that's what i said to the station Aboriginals i worked with in the Kimberlys in the 60's .
They worked hard for their trousers, boots and shirts . they had white sugar, flour, and off-cuts of meat and offal as payment, along with the luxury of a few sticks of tobacco a week to chew on .
Funny how the "pay dirt" never seemed to get them more than an galvanised iron humpy, sick kids and a nasty piece of work on four legs if they complained .

Daggett – the simple realities of life – the immediate income the government would achieve by the sale of Telstra will significantly exceed the immediate income from dividend – unless you are suggesting Telstra’s Dividend Yield was 100% with, presumably, a PE ratio of less than 1 - and even monopolies do not achieve that sort of payback.
The future dividends of Telstra will be significantly and increasingly influenced by competitive pressures and activity of other tel-cos – this competitive pressure is more likely to decrease the earnings (and thus the share price / value) of Telstra than increase them (Telstra maintaining the same risk profile) - simple logic.

I would further suggest the interest earning capacity of the 30 billion, or so, dollars will go some way to balancing the loss of Telstra dividends.
None of the above is “fantasy” or “fanciful” – so suggest you desist from such invective if you wish to remain untarnished.

tus – Like you, I rely on what I have studied, observed and know to be true; not what some sparrow brained, guilt ridden and incompetent leftie economics lecturer vomits up to try to impress the vacuous minds of the underdeveloped and gullible.

Mollydukes –

1 “Good kids” can come from bad homes.
2 “Bad kids” can come from good homes.
3 “Good kids” should not be shackled to the performance of “bad kids”
4 It ain’t the hand you are dealt that matters, it is the attitude you adopt in playing that hand which determines “success” or otherwise. TUS and I both know that – yet it seems to evade your reasoning.

Kartiya – “They worked hard for their trousers, boots and shirts . they had white sugar, flour, and off-cuts of meat and offal as payment, along with the luxury of a few sticks of tobacco a week to chew on” – that might well have been market economics – although in adopting such practices you may well have violated various State Truck Acts – (of which only the ACT seems to present in an internet accessible format).

Col Rouge wrote: "I would further suggest the interest earning capacity of the 30 billion, or so, dollars will go some way to balancing the loss of Telstra dividends."

The finance department, itself admitted we would could the Australian taxpayer "$255.5 million between 2004 and 2008" if the sale procedes. (see
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/Telstra-sale-plan-to-cost-millionss/2005/02/15/1108229978698.html)

Today, The Adelaide Advertiser reported that it will cost taxpayers $500 million to sell Telstra. (See
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16351874%255E911,00.html)

All of your other arguments are complete nonsense and have been refuted again and again and again and again in recent years. Can I, again, suggest that the discussion continue some place else, perhaps, here :

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/08/20/dont-minchin-it/

?

Col Rouge writes: "None of the above is 'fantasy' or 'fanciful' – so suggest you desist from such invective if you wish to remain untarnished."

Even many economics lecturers will tell their students that the neo-liberal mathematical economic models are deeply flawed and have never been confirmed by the experiences of the real world. This has been demonstrated in Steve Keen's "Debunking Economics" and Geoff Davies' "Economia".

ROFL, Col, you are a hoot. I do hope you enjoy writing your posts as much as I enjoy telling people about them. Surely the only thing you have studied is Maggie’s little blue book of hypocrisy.

Now where does that ‘attitude’ come from? Is everyone able to adopt the right attitude? How does one know the right attitude?

So in your reasoning, we are all exactly where we deserve to be by dint of the ‘attitude’ we have adopted? So that the CEO of Telstra is a better man than you, since he earns so much more. He must have worked harder or had a better attitude? Or did you just not want to be that wealthy?

What do you mean by ‘good kids can come from bad homes’ and ‘bad kids can come from good homes’. Are you so sure about what a good or a bad kid looks like?

I don’t think that it is that easy to distinguish between good and bad homes just by looking. I was talking about learning (of attitudes) in the home.

There are many incontrovertible studies that have shown that the things we learn early in life, (as well as the genetics we inherit) are very very important in determining how we behave. The Jesuits knew this a long time ago, when they said ‘give me a child until he is 7 and I will give you a Jesuit for life’.

Did you learn your bigotry in your early life?

Oh and you know what? Tus went to a uni! But only because the socialist government provided welfare for people to study and a scheme so that the poor could (if they had the right attitude) get off welfare.

Without the Labor government, with your neo-liberals, only the rich can go to uni.

Col Rouge's ,excuses the effect of "market economics" to keep employed, profit generating Aboriginals in poverty and cosequently ill health in the 1960's ?? Worked well for nearly two hundred years i guess .
Howard will attempt to take away workers' rights and conditions via his power over the senate . The results will be equally as disasterous for Australian society . "Honest john" will blot his copy book again .